We
welcome to the public galleries today Heather Modlin and Dave Martin from
Key Assets who are present for the reading of a Ministerial Statement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by
Members

MR. SPEAKER: Members' statements today
are the Members for the Districts of Bonavista, Mount Pearl  Southlands,
Labrador West, St. John's East  Quidi Vidi, Harbour Main and Cape St.
Francis.

The
hon. the Member for Bonavista.

MR. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We
got your back, Fort Mac! That has been the rallying cry from people across
Canada and especially here in Newfoundland and Labrador over the past two
weeks. The devastating wildfires in Northern Alberta have affected most, if
not all, communities in our province. That is true for my hometown of
Catalina in the municipality of Trinity Bay North. My childhood friend Ryan
Duffett and his family were one of those who lost everything.

This
moved the children of Trinity Bay North, led by Keiara and Karlee Paul,
young cousins of Ryan, to do something to help. Beginning on Sunday, May 8,
and continuing until yesterday afternoon, these kind-hearted kids held bake
and lemonade sales at various locations throughout our community, a raffle
on all the fixings of a traditional Newfoundland turkey dinner, won by
Sharon Donovan of Melrose, and a BBQ. All proceeds from these events are
going to the Canadian Red Cross and, to date, they have raised over $900,
with donations still coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KING: I ask all hon. Members to
join with me in congratulating the children of Trinity Bay North, parents
Krista Diamond and Shannon White, and all those who provided support to this
worthy cause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
the District of Mount Pearl  Southlands.

MR. LANE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise in this hon. House to recognize several outstanding
young people in my community. The 26th Annual Mount Pearl Focus on Youth
Awards was a tremendous success and highlighted the great talent,
athleticism and intellectual ability possessed by some very amazing youth.

In
addition, there were Performing Arts recognition awards presented to the
Mount Pearl Show Choir, the O'Donel Jazz Band, the cast of Etcetera 29, the
Mount Pearl Senior High Jazz Band, Mount Pearl Senior High Traditional Band
and the cast of the Mount Pearl Senior High Musical,
You're a Good Man Charlie Brown.

I
would ask all Members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating all
these individuals on their accomplishment. Our future is in good hands.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Labrador West.

MR. LETTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
rise in this hon. House today to congratulate the 2016 graduating class of
Menihek High School in Labrador West. I had the honour of attending the
graduation this past weekend and witnessed first-hand the joy and
anticipation in the eyes of the 102 young men and women who appear ready to
take on the world.

The
graduation theme was a quote from Walt Disney himself: All our dreams can
come true, if we have the courage to pursue them. Very fitting, Mr.
Speaker, at a time when our world requires courage to make the right choices
and the right decisions.

The
graduating class initiated a collection for Fort McMurray during the
graduation ceremonies and collected $800 for the cause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LETTO: I would also like to
recognize the teachers and staff of Menihek High, in particular Principal
Fraser Drover and Vice-Principal Eugene Costello, who have shown tremendous
leadership to the students of Menihek. Both the school and the communities
of Labrador West are fortunate to have them guiding our students in the
right direction.

I
ask all hon. Members to join me in congratulating the class of 2016 at
Menihek High School and wish them every success in their studies that lie
ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

On
Saturday, May 7, we lost a great man. John Gibson was, until the last
election, a constituent of mine. More important, he was one of the most
tireless and passionate voices behind the restoration of the city's river
systems, including the Rennies River in St. John's East  Quidi Vidi, as
well as the Waterford and Virginia Rivers.

John
retired from DFO in 1997, but he never retired from science, continuing to
record his observations and to publish in both news media and scientific
journals. His final paper was accepted by a journal just days before his
death.

John
Gibson, to quote his obituary, cared deeply about pristine rivers and
lakes, tree cover and natural debris for fish cover, no development along
riverbanks, natural streams left above ground, biodiversity and
sustainability, honesty in science and politics, and preservation of habitat
amongst many other issues.

On a
personal note, I was always impressed with John's lack of fear in standing
up for nature against what others thought was the inevitable path of
development, using scientific facts and data to support his argument.

My
sincere condolences to Judy, Caroline and Mary Jane.

I
ask all hon. Members to salute the great scientific legacy of John Gibson.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Harbour Main.

MS. PARSLEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
salute Roncalli Central High of Avondale. This high school just concluded
their annual graduation ceremonies.

I
wish to highlight that this was yet another safe grad event. Events such as
this, can only take place with the support of the community, the volunteers,
parents and, of course, teacher and staff involvement.

By
sponsoring this event, the graduates came to realize that you can have a
good time with friends, family and staff without drugs and alcohol.
Long-term, thoughtful planning of events and activities throughout the
night, ensured a safe time for all.

At
this time, while many of our province's Level 3 students are about to host
their own graduation celebrations, I ask all Members in this hon. House to
join with me in wishing them a safe grad, a night filled with enjoyment and
pride in their accomplishments, and every success in their futures.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

I
rise in this hon. House today to recognize the newest Lions Club in the
province, the first one in the past 20 years.

On
May 7, the Torbay Lions Club had their first charter night celebrations,
hosted at the Pouch Cove Lions Club, attended by family and friends from
Torbay, Pouch Cove and Flatrock.

Torbay Lions Club projects for 2015-16 were: host a bingo at the North Pond
Manor for seniors; assisted in serving Santa breakfast at Holy Trinity
Elementary; entered a float at the Christmas parade and collected food for
the food bank; participated in an awareness campaign at the Christmas market
at Jack Byrne Arena to fundraise for community groups; served brunch at the
Gathering Place for world hunger week; donated 100 pairs of eyeglasses to
Bishops Falls Correctional Centre eyeglasses recycling program.

The
club donated a total of $1,600 to local groups and Lions Club International
including: the Torbay food bank, the Holy Trinity Elementary breakfast
program, Pathfinders, the Gathering Place, White Cane project and the
diabetic campaign.

I
ask all hon. Members to join with me in congratulating the Torbay Lions Club
on their first year and wishing them many more.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to welcome
to our public galleries today as well, former member Percy Barrett.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The Commemoration of the
First World War and the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel

MR. SPEAKER:
For Honour 100 today, we have the Member for the District of Lewisporte 
Twillingate.

MR. D. BENNETT: I will now read into the record the following 40 names of those who lost
their lives in the First World War in the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, the
Royal Newfoundland Naval Reserve, or the Newfoundland Mercantile Marine.
This will be followed by a moment of silence.

As
we begin National Police Week, it was an honour this morning to help kick
off the Women in Leadership Law Enforcement session being held at the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary's Memorial campus in St. John's.

Twenty intelligent and ambitious women from the RNC, RCMP, Fish and Wildlife
Enforcement Division, Sheriff's Office and Adult Custody are participating
in the program this week which is based on the Legacy Leadership model. It
certainly was a pleasure to have the opportunity to meet with them this
morning.

The
goal is to encourage female leadership in law enforcement agencies and to
develop networks among women who work in law enforcement. The 20 women I
spoke to this morning have been identified as leaders or emerging leaders by
their respective organizations and the session will be highly interactive
and experiential.

Mr.
Speaker, while we have come a long way in terms of gender equity in law
enforcement in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is still plenty of work to
do; particularly in the senior ranks. Our hope is that programs such as this
will result in more women in leadership roles.

Law
enforcement careers are stressful and strong leadership talent is critical
to ensuring the safety and security of our communities. The women
participating in this week's training have been encouraged to use the
knowledge and skills they gain to become talented leaders and mentors to
those they supervise.

Mr.
Speaker, good leaders are sometimes hard to find to find. I believe all the
women participating this week have great potential and I look forward to
seeing them advance in their careers.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
thank the minister for an advance copy of the statement. On behalf of the
Official Opposition, I would like to recognize May 15-21, 2016, as National
Police Week in our country.

Mr.
Speaker, programs such as the Women in Leadership Law Enforcement session
are valuable to the policing enforcement industry in our province. These
programs inspire women who attend to take on leadership roles within their
respective organizations. These programs also give them valuable mentoring
and networking opportunities that they would not find elsewhere.

As
we all know, we have not yet obtained gender equality in law enforcement.
While programs like this help to inspire women to reach for the top, there's
plenty more that needs to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. I agree with the
minister that while we have come a long way in gender equity in law
enforcement, we still have a long way to go. For too long the senior ranks
of law enforcement have been almost exclusively men. For the service to
change for the better, we need more gender equity in senior ranks.

Good
luck to these 20 courageous and committed women. We need their energy,
insight and leadership.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by
ministers?

The
hon. the Minister of Child, Youth and Family Services.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH: Mr. Speaker, as we
continue to face a shortage of family-based placements for children and
youth in care in certain regions, I am pleased to rise today to highlight a
creative approach that is helping to increase these placement options.

Recently, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services entered into an
agreement with Key Assets Newfoundland and Labrador to establish the Key
Assets' Family-Based Pilot Project. This project provides family-based
placements for children and youth in care who have a range of complex needs
and/or are part of a sibling group.

Mr.
Speaker, through this project, Key Assets recruits, assesses and trains
those providing care, as well as provides 24-hour wraparound supports. Our
social workers monitor these homes and the children and youth placed in
them, as well as work closely with Key Assets to develop in care plans for
these children and youth. To date, 13 children have been matched and eight
homes approved.

We
are pleased to continue collaborating with Key Assets, a non-profit
organization providing residential and family-based care and support
services to young people and families with complex needs.

Mr.
Speaker, through budget 2016-17, we have reiterated our commitment to
ensuring the protection and well-being of children and youth. We will
continue to focus on further enhancing child and youth care through an
investment of approximately $150 million for child protection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY: I thank the minister for
an advance copy of her statement. We all recognize the challenges that exist
with having a sufficient number of appropriate placements for children and
youth.

Today's announcement of a Family-Based Care Pilot Project has been in the
works for quite some time and we are very pleased to see this finally come
to fruition.

I'd
like to take this opportunity to thank Key Assets, our non-profit community
partner, an organization with a wonderful reputation and track record in
providing residential and family-based care and support to young people and
families with complex needs. We must also recognize that none of these
initiatives would be possible without the knowledge, creativity and
dedication of the senior staff at CYFS, who I hear did a fantastic job of
taking this idea and making it a reality.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. PERRY: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I,
too, thank the minister for an advance copy of her statement. I'm glad to
see Key Assets' pilot project is making strides in providing a supportive
home environment for children with complex needs and children who are part
of sibling groups. It is good new approaches are being tried to give
children a home as an alternative to other types of residential care.

Bravo to the eight families who have opened their homes to children in these
circumstances. I thank them for their generosity and commitment. The more
support resources these families and children can receive, the better.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. ROGERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by
ministers?

Oral
Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has included a $30 million contingency
reserve in the budget for the first time since 2002. In the Estimates book
there's a description of each line item and a count by department. The $30
million contingency fund does not include this.

Could the minister outline for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what
exactly this fund is for?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

I
thank the Member opposite for the question. When we met in the House the
last time the House was open, we were debating in Committee of the Whole. As
part of that debate, the Member opposite asked that question and I provided
him a number of examples; things such as disasters that would happen, things
that would be unforeseen that may happen.

The
contingency fund provides an opportunity for us to make sure that on the sad
chance that some community in our province may go through something like a
Fort McMurray experience or a tsunami or other things, we want to make sure
that we had a contingency fund. I think I've provided the Member opposite
with a large number of those answers last Thursday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

I
acknowledge we asked the questions, but we're talking here about the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm asking on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, the
minister mentioned disaster relief and items like that.

I
ask her, for certain circumstances, why wouldn't you have that in a line
item in Municipal Affairs or Fire and Emergency Services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

As
the Member opposite certainly is aware, Municipal Affairs as well as Fire
and Emergency Services has the responsibility for providing support to
communities. Finance has the responsibility for making sure that we have
monies available on a contingency basis, should things happen in our
community that are unforeseen  not singularly related to impacts on
community, but there might be other things that might happen.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, if we knew the exact things that would be
unforeseen, we would have detailed that out in the budget document.
Providing a prudent amount of money in the Estimates to be approved by this
House, we think, is being very transparent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

Mr.
Speaker, in the Estimates process line-by-line line departments, things are
described and there are definitions given of what funds would actually be
used for. What we have here, since 2001, there's never been this type of a
contingency fund or number on the books, with no description of what it's
going to be used for. In the fiscal situation we're in this year, certainly
there are a lot of community groups, a lot of people in Newfoundland and
Labrador, services and programs are going to be checked.

I
ask again to the minister: What are you going to use this $30 million for,
and why is there no description in the Estimates on what it is going to be
used for?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you to the
Member opposite for the opportunity to stand up again and provide some
additional insight into the contingency fund; things like potential legal
claims, forest fires, increases in caseloads in a variety of departments.
There could be all kinds of things related to communities that may happen in
the next year.

While the former administration may have thought that planning a contingency
fund was irresponsible, we believe that being transparent with that amount
of money in the budget is a prudent thing to do. Certainly, as I also
explained, that information would be provided to the House within three days
of the expenditure being approved, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Mr. Speaker, the
minister is not going to tell us what she is going to spend the $30 million,
but she says she is going to make it available to the House. So what will
happen, it will go to Treasury Board, it will go through Cabinet, they'll
make a decision how it's going to be spent, then they'll come to the House
and tell us. What they should be doing is right here in Estimates in the
House telling us how they're spending $30 million.

Mr.
Speaker, I ask the minister: Thirty million dollars, as I said, with the
fiscal challenges we're facing, how about reinvesting $5.1 million to
eliminate the Liberal choice to increase class cap sizes? How about $3.6
million of these funds to remove the Liberal choice to combine grades? How
about reinstating $1 million to keep the libraries open? Why aren't these
good choices, Finance Minister, for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we have
no idea at this point the number of legal cases, the potential increase in
caseloads, what might happen through natural or other incidents in our
community.

This
amount of money is put aside. It will not be spent in the absence of due
diligence providing the details to the Members of this House. It is a
practice that has been underway in many jurisdictions, including our own up
until the former administration decided not to do it. We felt that it was
important to have this contingency fund available so that instead of
expecting the budget to run over, as the former administration would, that
we would have a modest amount of money that would be able to provide for
contingencies, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

Mr.
Speaker, we're going to be asked to vote on the $30 million here in the
budget process.

So I
ask the minister: In your process of deciding how are you going to use these
funds, how are you going to decide? When are you going to let us know when
you use the funds? Is it after it goes through Cabinet and you make the
decision, or are you going to make it public what the consideration is in
spending this $30 million sometime in the next fiscal year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

I
thank the Member opposite for the opportunity to speak to this again.
Providing transparency around any expenditure related to this contingency
fund is very important. As I mentioned last week when we were discussing
this as the Committee of the Whole, the requirement would be that the
spending amount or the expenditure would be tabled in this House within
three days. Certainly, that is what we intend to do.

Unforeseen circumstances are exactly what that word indicates, unforeseen,
and we want to make sure that the people of the province know that we expect
to be held accountable, and we know we will be, in this House of Assembly
when we present that information, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition
House Leader.

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

Mr.
Speaker, the $30 million could have been used to prevent budget cuts.

I
ask the minister, could she consider reinstating the $4.9 million to the
Newfoundland and Labrador Drug Prescription Program for over-the-counter
medications and diabetic test strips? How about reinstating $2.5 million
through government aid to reduce adult dental coverage? Are these issues
that are important to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that can be
considered or are we just going to keep this $30 million flush fund there?
We don't know how it's going to be spent.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
just find it kind of odd that the Member opposite is asking these types of
questions for emergency funding. Mr. Speaker, as we said, it's a contingency
fund. Forest fires; we could have a major forest fire in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.

If
the Member is willing to keep going on this line, I'll ask him one question.
When you had $2.3 in your emergency funding last year, as the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, why didn't you bring it to the House what you were going
to use it for? Do you know the reason why? He didn't know what he was going
to use it for because it's for emergency funding.

When
he passed the budget last year, this Member, the same one who's asking the
question, could not come to this House  over $2 million  and say, here's
what we're going to use it for, Mr. Speaker, because it's for emergency
funding. He's well aware because he was the minister who had the money.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I
ask for all Members to respect the individual who has been recognized to
speak. If Members can't respect the Member who's recognized to speak, that
Member may not be recognized to speak when they stand.

The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another day, another protest in our province. Just a half hour ago, hundreds
of nurses marched in front of this Legislature. The Premier has previously
stated that he will make nurses work harder.

I
ask the Minister of Health: How many nursing positions will be eliminated
from the health care system as a result of this recent budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much for
the question, Mr. Speaker.

The
nurses are an integral backbone of the health care system in this province,
both in the community and in acute care. The gentleman opposite will have
had access to the Estimates documents just like everybody else.

There will be 41.28 FTEs removed from nursing this year as a result of
rationalization and attrition, some of which was started by his government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, he can call
it rationalization or attrition. He can call it whatever he wants, the
bottom line is he is eliminating critical nursing positions from our health
care facilities.

What
about budget number two, Mr. Speaker: How many nursing jobs can we
anticipate being slashed and gutted from the public service in the budget
that's coming this fall?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Mr. Speaker, thank you
for the question.

Rationalization means to expose to reason. What we have done is we have
taken programs in the past which have been shown scientifically to have no
evidence to support them and we have reallocated the money from those. It is
natural that some of those FTEs will disappear. Whether that will result in
job losses will entirely depend on a process, as he knows, called collective
bargaining and labour rights and that will work its way through the system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, the Finance
Minister and the Health Minister love to talk about FTEs while we're talking
about nurses and we're talking about people and how their lives are going to
be impacted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: On a related note,
related to nurses, I ask the Minister of Health: What are you doing to make
the work environment for our nurses healthier instead of simply making their
work environment smaller?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Health and Community Services.

MR. HAGGIE: Thank you very much for
the opportunity to answer this question. We actually have a joint committee,
whose acronym I forget. It essentially involves the registered nurses of
Newfoundland and Labrador sitting down with government and the regional
health authorities to discuss the nature of the work environment, how we can
improve that and ensure it's safe for them and all users of the health care
system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, other than
the handful of ABCs, the agencies, boards and commissions that will go
through the Appointments Commission, Bill 1 does not require the new Liberal
Appointments Commission to rank the three names they submit to Cabinet.

Will
the government agree to an amendment to Bill 1 that will direct the
Appointments Commission to rank the candidates whose names they submit to
Cabinet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

I'm
happy to stand here and speak to Bill 1, the Independent Appointments
Commission, which, as the Member knows, we will be discussing in Committee
in this House today. We're willing to listen to all the amendments that the
Members will put forward as we go into the Committee stage today.

However, I would note that I did ask over a month and a half ago if the
Opposition had any suggestions that they would like to see. I wish they had
forwarded them earlier, but we will consider them as we move through
Committee today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
thank the minister for his response. This bill has not been discussed in
this House for over a month and a half. We were advised this morning that we
will be going into Committee today. I have all of our amendments right here,
Mr. Speaker, and I'm happy to give them to the minister right now and happy
to work with him as we run through the debate.

Bill
1 will allow the Cabinet to ignore the names submitted by their Appointments
Commission and appoint someone else in secrecy.

Will
the government amend Bill 1 to require the Cabinet to make a public
disclosure every time the person they appoint is not on the list of
candidates recommended by the commission?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

Just
going back to the first point the Member referenced, I emailed the
Opposition on March 23 and it said: Why don't you submit your amendments so
we can discuss them and consider them and put some thought into whether they
can improve the bill? The Opposition didn't take the opportunity to forward
that until right this moment in the House of Assembly.

The
purpose of this Legislature is to discuss legislation in the hopes of making
it better so that we can have the best legislation. I would submit we're
very proud to forward this piece of legislation into the House. Before we
had this legislation what you had were individuals getting appointed to
prominent positions based on who they knew, and not necessarily were they
the best selection for this position. So I look forward to the amendments
that the Members have as we discuss this in Committee today.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, Committee of
the Whole is the opportunity to introduce amendments; that process isn't
starting until today. If government was serious about considering amendments
to Bill 1, it would take this flawed piece of legislation and refer the
entire thing to a Committee of this House for review by all Members.

Bill
1 will allow the Cabinet to bypass their Appointments Commission whenever
circumstances are deemed to be urgent or extenuating.

Would the government agree to an amendment that would require the Cabinet to
notify the public immediately whenever it bypasses the Appointments
Commission to make an appointment in such circumstances?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

Again, Committee is the opportunity to discuss this, but I would like to
thank the Members of the NDP who, when I emailed them, came forward with
their suggestions some time ago so that we could discuss them. I would like
to thank the NDP for doing this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. PARSONS: Again, the purpose is
to have the best piece of legislation. I am looking forward to considering
these amendments. But before we can say what we're going to do, I'd like to
even read the amendment as opposed to being asked a question in the House of
Assembly right here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: Mr. Speaker, as I said,
the minister is welcome to see all of the amendments. I've commented on some
of the intended amendments publicly previously.

Bill
1 calls for a review of the act every five years, a review that would be
sent to Cabinet.

Would the government, in the interest of openness and accountability, agree
to an amendment that would send this review, not to Cabinet, but to the
Speaker of this House for public release?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Again, I can probably
give the same answer now that I'll give, depending on how many amendments
they put forward, is we look forward to listening to their amendments and to
the rationale behind them. I certainly won't make a snap judgement on this
very important piece of legislation, something that is new in this province
and we've never seen before.

I
look forward to seeing the amendments that the Member puts forward; however,
I would note one thing. They are putting forward suggestions based on a
piece of legislation, one that they never put in when they were there for 12
years. In those cases, Cabinet put in who they wanted. They put it in based
on the name that they thought; there was no consideration by anybody,
whether it was the Public Service Commission, an Independent Appointments
Commission. This was totally Cabinet-based.

I
appreciate the fact that they're trying to fix the flawed process that they
had.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: What we're trying to do,
Mr. Speaker, is fix a flawed piece of legislation that is a complete joke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENT: They're talking about an
Independent Appointments Commission. The commission is anything but
independent  and guess what? It can't even make appointments.

Mr.
Speaker, will government consider an amendment to Bill 1 that will require
annual reviews to determine whether the merit principle was applied in every
case that an appointment was made? Would the government agree to have this
review published in the interest of openness, transparency and
accountability?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, again, I
look forward to hearing the amendments that the Members put forward, as they
do so in the Committee process.

Again, I wish we could have had an opportunity to review them over the last
month-and-a-half that we had prior to this coming back to the House. I'm
willing to consider any amendment that they put forward here in this House
so we can discuss it to make sure we have the best piece of legislation.

The
fact is we have to listen to these suggestions because we do want the best
piece of legislation possible. Either way, even if it's flawed it's going to
be 10 times better than the process that the Opposition had when they were
in government, which was nothing. It was based on who you knew.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

Following the devastating fire at the fish plant in Bay de Verde the Premier
said we will do whatever is needed. If there's a role for the province,
we'll be there. We'll step up and we'll be there for the people. Clearly,
the province has not been there.

I
ask the minister: Where are you for the Town of Bay de Verde?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
was at that meeting. I went to Bay de Verde with the Premier and the
Minister of Fisheries. We met with Quinlans. It was very devastating. We
understand the impact it's going to have on the communities and surrounding
areas. We did meet with the mayor, later with the council.

What
the mayor said to us: He would like to have income supplement, a top up.
Where they are used to probably 60 hours a week, now they may only get 40 or
50. But the mayor did also add, in front of 15 people: I know there's no
program available. I just want to put a human side to the face.

That's what the mayor said in the meeting, and he understood this, we
understood this. What we said to the mayor and to the council, at the end of
the year, if there are people who need any help with employment generation,
we would do it through the community enhancement program, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Wow, Mr. Speaker. It
was a big media day when we saw the Premier, the minister and the Member go
out, and they were going to do everything for the area.

On
Friday, the Mayor of Bay de Verde was quoted in the media as saying his
pleas to the province have fallen on deaf ears.

So I
ask the minister: The mayor it out pleading to the province, why aren't you
answering the mayor?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I understand
politics. It's to a new point when you are using the tragedy in Bay de Verde
to try to get political points. It is, and I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker.
What the Member opposite is talking about was said a month ago. I just had
an interview with CBC with Lindsay Bird; she took this story that was a
month old. This story was a month old when the mayor  we let it ride until
Lindsay Bird asked me for an interview. What we said is we would help the
town. There hasn't been one additional request  not one request  made to
my department since that initial media report back when we met with them,
Mr. Speaker.

We're helping. We're working with Quinlans, Mr. Speaker. We committed to
Quinlans. We offered assistance. We are available to it. I say if you're
going to do media reports, go back when it first started a month ago, not
last Friday, when it initially came out.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals
have stated they would spend half a million dollars to create an office for
a seniors' advocate. Groups in every corner of the province are stating that
your budget will be devastating to seniors and you turn a deaf ear.

I
ask the Minister of Seniors, Wellness and Social Development: You won't
listen to the seniors who are crying out to you now, why should seniors
believe that you'll listen to an advocate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Seniors,
Wellness and Social Development.

MS. GAMBIN-WALSH: Mr. Speaker,
Budget 2016 provides support to programs and services for seniors.
We consulted with groups and they asked for an office of the seniors'
advocate. It's not a luxury, it's a need.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, every Member
of this House should be an advocate for the seniors they represent, and
fight against the Liberal budget that will bring them hardship.

Would the minister consider delaying the hiring of a seniors' advocate and
reinvesting the $500,000 budgeted to remove some of the burden on your
seniors? Your government has clearly demonstrated that you don't listen
anyway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I take
exception to the Member opposite's insinuation that in this budget we didn't
consider how important seniors are in our province, quite frankly. We
implemented a Newfoundland Income Supplement. We enhanced the Seniors'
Benefit. We committed to creating the office of the seniors' advocate when
Members opposite last year spent hours in this House debating that that was
a luxury  a luxury.

Quite frankly, that's shameful. For that Member there to say today that a
seniors' advocate is not important in this province, I hope that she
continues to maintain that when her constituents ask her why she's backing
away from a seniors' advocate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I'll remind Members again
that the Member that's been recognized to speak should be given the floor. I
ask Members to respect that.

The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The
Liberal's election platform stated the Liberal government would generate $50
million in revenue this year from selling unused government assets.

I
ask the minister: What assets have been sold? Why didn't they follow his
party's election platform and contain this revenue in the budget?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the question. One of the things we have done is we make sure
that we're going to be optimizing all of the resources and assets we have.
Part of my plan, over the next little while, we're putting together a real
estate optimization plan. We're doing a complete and total inventory of all
the buildings we have.

We've already started to make some changes within our department to try to
eliminate some of the enormous leases we have done. For example, the English
school board, we're moving them out, so we're doing some rearranging.

What
we will be doing is we will be optimizing the amount of money we can get
from some of the assets that we will be disposing of, and that will be over
the next little while. We will certainly keep the House up to date on how
the progress will be going in that particular area, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
thank the minister for his response. A promised asset optimization plan 
this was a promise made to the public and there was a dollar figure out on
it. It's nice to know we're doing an asset optimization plan and we're
analyzing all our assets, but I have to ask the minister: Was the $50
million figure an election tactic or was it a real promise?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Transportation and Works.

MR. HAWKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
will tell you one of the promises we'll make to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador is that we will get as much revenue as we possibly can from any
of the assets we have to dispose of. One of the things we want to make sure
is that every person who is living in Newfoundland and Labrador will get a
return on what we have.

We
do have some concern, Mr. Speaker, with the amount of inventory that has
been in the previous administration, buildings that were purchased and we
have areas that we do not have full capacity. So part of my mandate is to
make sure all of those areas, the inventory is done, any space that we can
utilize within the existing, and we may be in a position to dispose of
property.

That's the plan. That's the optimization we're going to be making. That's
what I'm going to be doing, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

The
Deficit Reduction Levy extracts a higher percentage of income from low- and
middle-income Newfoundlanders and Labradorians than it does from higher
income people. I understand the Premier's position that the levy is
temporary. I have never asked whether it is permanent or temporary.

I
ask the Minister of Finance how this government justifies this regressive
form of taxation, which puts a heavier burden on low- and middle-income
earners than it does on higher income earners.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the
Member opposite asks a question about the temporary deficit levy, a levy
that we felt was important to make part of our entire suite of, sadly, the
tax increases we had to undertake as a result of the mismanagement of the
former administration.

This
type of levy is not unusual for jurisdictions that are faced with the
economic and fiscal realities that our government is. When we look at the
progressivity of the entire personal income tax, I can assure the Member
opposite that taken in conjunction with the levy and the personal income
tax, our tax is progressive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

I
say to the minister that their levy is an unfair tax. It flies in the face
of regressive taxation principles.

So I
ask the Minister of Finance: What is it about the tax being temporary that
in any way diminishes its unfairness?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

I'm
not sure if the Member opposite heard me or if she is using selective
hearing today. The progressiveness of the tax is the deficit levy in
conjunction with the personal income tax; 38 per cent of the people in the
province won't be paying the deficit levy. The average, for about 40 per
cent or less, is less than $340.

The
Member opposite can certainly continue to discuss  and will I'm sure  the
temporariness of this deficit levy, but I can assure the people of the
province that our intention is to remove this levy as quickly as we can when
we get a better management on the fiscal situation of this province, Mr.
Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

The
minister didn't hear me. I would like to say that I have asked the minister
to ask the Premier to provide the documentation to the House to support his
claim that 35 per cent of taxpayers pay 88 per cent of all taxes in this
province. He claimed it. We'd like to see the documentation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if the
Member opposite is looking for a stratification of taxpayers, we can
certainly provide her that information. I think we can provide it for her,
no problem.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, Nobel
laureate economist Paul Krugman said every country that introduced
significant austerity has seen its economy suffer. All of the economic
research that allegedly supported the austerity push has been discredited 
totally discredited.

I
ask the minister: Why is she enforcing an austerity budget in spite of all
this expertise and evidence, and further crippling our economy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, we have
the highest debt per capita of any province in Canada. We have some of the
lowest ratings when it comes to being able to borrow money. We have some of
the smallest population. We're the second, I believe, smallest population in
Canada with the largest geographical area to service. If the Member opposite
doesn't understand the fiscal situation that we are in, she should really
take a look at the reality of the financial results of this province.

We
have the highest debt per GDP. We have the highest debt per capita. People
of the province cannot afford  they cannot afford the borrowing that we
were going to put on the heads of our children, Mr. Speaker, which would be
somewhere in the vicinity of $53,000 per person.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the minister
is ignoring the most brilliant economic minds in the whole world.

Mr.
Speaker, running the provincial economy is not like running a business. It
is not only about money in money out, nor can you solve deficits simply by
slashing with a red pen. In government, if you cut spending you may save
money but you also have a negative impact on the overall economy and you put
people out of work.

I
ask the minister: Can she explain how her cuts to date have improved the
employment situation in the province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of
Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, for the
first part of the Members preamble, one of the reasons why we presented the
people of the province with a seven year plan to bring the province back to
surplus was with a reverence for the pace of change that our province can
undertake to bring us back to surplus. Quite frankly, those discussions and
decisions weren't made in the absence of understanding that there is an
economic impact, Mr. Speaker, and we don't hide that.

Secondly, to the Member opposite, I can confidently say that $570 million
worth of infrastructure creating thousands of jobs over the next number of
years certainly will impact the economy in a very positive way, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The
time for Question Period has expired.

The
Speaker is hesitant to interrupt Question Period and take away from the time
of recognized political bodies in this House to ask or answer questions, but
I've stood on many occasions and I'm going to put it out here today very
firmly that those who persist in interrupting during questions and answers
risk not being identified by the Speaker when they stand to ask a question
or answer.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

I
give notice that I will on Wednesday be moving the following private
Member's motion:

BE
IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly urges the government to ensure that
the Deficit Reduction Levy is immediately eliminated and that any
replacement measure be based on progressive taxation principles and further
urges that an independent review of the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial
income tax system begin promptly to make it fairer to Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians.

This
will be seconded by the Member for St. John's Centre.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the motion that I've just read is the motion that the
House will debate on Wednesday.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of
motion?

The
hon. the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills.

MR. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give
notice that I will ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend
the College Act, 1996, which I understand to be Bill 29.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of
motion?

The
hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House will not
adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17.

Further, pursuant to Standing Order 11, I give notice that this House do not
adjourn at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Further notices of
motion?

Answers to Questions for Which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS as a result of Budget 2016
X-ray services at the Bonavista Peninsula Community Health Centre will be
closed after 4 p.m. until 8 a.m.; and

WHEREAS this will mean that anyone needing an X-ray after 4 p.m. will have
to travel elsewhere via ambulance; and

WHEREAS as a result of Budget 2016
laundry services will also be cut resulting in laundry being transferred to
St. John's;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to immediately direct Eastern Health to
reverse cuts to X-ray and laundry services at the Bonavista Peninsula
Community Health Centre.

And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.
Speaker, I was contacted by a resident of the Bonavista area who was unable
to get a response from his MHA about this petition. So I agreed that I would
present a petition on behalf of residents. The residents who are on today's
petition are from communities like: Port Union, Keels, Bonavista, Elliston,
Catalina, Spillars Cove, Newmans Cove and a number of other areas on the
Bonavista Peninsula as well.

The
petition continues to be circulated and I anticipate receiving similar
petitions from residents of the Bonavista Peninsula in the days and weeks
ahead, and I'll do my best to bring those to this House of Assembly on
behalf of those residents.

I
received one letter from a gentleman in the Bonavista area who's a father.
He wrote and he said without X-ray services at the Bonavista hospital, his
son probably wouldn't be with us today. He provides some commentary as well
about the impact of cuts to X-ray services and he argues that there isn't
cost savings.

One
of the things that the residents of the Bonavista Peninsula would like to
see is proof that closing an AES office or reducing X-ray services or making
changes to laundry services will actually result in savings. He says with
regard to the cost savings, there is none.

One
certified X-ray technician position, for the sake of lives, isn't saving
money when I will have to pay for an ambulance, which government subsidizes,
a nurse and/or doctor to travel to Clarenville as well, an hour and a half
away from Bonavista, which is time enough to determine whether his son lives
or not. Upon arrival to the referring hospital, an X-ray technician will
have to be called in.

His
argument is that there could actually be more costs incurred as a result of
these changes. So the residents are looking for answers. They don't want
their health care services eroded. They feel they have been unfairly
targeted in this budget when it comes to cuts not only in health care, but
in other government departments as well.

In
the days and weeks ahead, I look forward to presenting further petitions on
behalf of residents of the Bonavista Peninsula who are very concerned about
these recent budget cuts.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly
sheweth:

WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy is an extremely regressive surtax,
placing a higher burden on low- and middle-income taxpayers; and

WHEREAS surtaxes are typically levied on the highest income earners only as
currently demonstrated in other provinces, as well as Australia, Norway and
other countries; and

WHEREAS government states in the 2016 provincial budget that the personal
income tax schedule needs to be revised and promises to do so;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to ensure that the Deficit Reduction
Levy be eliminated and any replacement measure be based on progressive
taxation principles, and that an independent review of the Newfoundland and
Labrador provincial income system begin immediately to make it fairer to
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.
Speaker, the petitions keep pouring in to the office. I also have an
electronic petition which I know we cannot submit to this House at this
point, but that has close to 20,000 signatures now. People aren't just
signing their names electronically. It's interesting; many of them are
writing comments. There are thousands of people writing comments, some of
them quite lengthy and substantive comments.

Mr.
Speaker, the people of the province know this levy is not a progressive,
fair taxation. Everybody in this House knows that as well. I don't know what
it's going to take for government to listen, to hear.

Academics are telling us, Municipalities NL is telling us, seniors are
telling us, teachers are telling us, labour is telling us and our neighbours
are telling. What does it take for government to listen, to really hear?
They talk so much about their consultation process, but that was a faux
consultation process. Basically all they did was set up the question, framed
the question and said: What would you cut?

We
know that's not the way to get ourselves out of this economic situation that
we're in. We all know it's bad. We've heard from government a million times.
We know it's bad, but we know there is a better way and that is what
government is refusing to look at.

When
you think of the Nobel laureate economist Krugman said that, in fact,
austerity doesn't work. We know that. Economists all over the world are
saying the same thing. Yet, this government is choosing to ignore the most
brilliant economic minds in the world. There's something wrong, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East  Bell Island.

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd
like to present this petition: To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the
undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS Budget 2016 closed the
Advanced Education and Skills office in Bonavista; and

WHEREAS the residents of Bonavista and surrounding communities require and
deserve an appropriate level of service;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government reconsider its decision to close the
Bonavista Advanced Education and Skills office.

And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.
Speaker, I've had the opportunity to stand in this House and present a
number of petitions, particularly around the impact that the closures of the
AES offices will have on these communities. A lot of these are remote
communities or they're in isolated areas, or they themselves are the hub for
a number of surrounding communities. In Bonavista's case here, we have
people here who have signed from King's Cove, Plate Cove East, Melrose,
Catalina, Bonavista and all the other surrounding community areas there.

I
would like to note, too, that along with the Bonavista closure we have the
other areas: Baie Verte, for example, Mary's Harbour, Bell Island, Norris
Point, Hopedale, Nain and Twillingate.

As I
mentioned at the beginning, all of these are key service, oriented
communities that other communities feed into. They are either isolated, that
they stand on their own and all the residents use the AES office for a
multitude of services. Above and beyond what normally the Advanced Education
and Skills would offer, they become the hub for the connector between  if
it's Municipal Affairs, if it's Health, if it's Education, if it's Tourism,
Culture, Business Development. Whatever line departments it may be, they
serve a very important component to enhancing programs and services for the
people there.

I've
noticed in my own community of Bell Island, and it has a similar process
when it comes to Bonavista, that it's a standalone, yet it can service
people in the immediate area. There's isolation. When you're in Bonavista to
be able to get to your nearest hub, it's not just down the street. It is
not, let's get a ride with our neighbour. It's not, well, on the way home
from somewhere I'll pick it up. It doesn't work that way.

The
services there are necessary, and they've been there for decades and decades
for a reason. It's helped drive the economy. It's helped to educate people.
It's helped get people access to services they didn't know existed. It's
helped the government at different levels, from municipal, provincial and
federal to be able to promote the services they have. It's also been a noted
area to engage citizens. Citizens have been able to go there for engagement
processes where they've been asked to give their opinion on certain programs
and services. This has been a very valuable tool to those communities that
exist in those particularly isolated areas.

It's
an injustice to be closing those without giving any real thought to the
service. I'm confident, and I've said it as somebody who worked nearly 30
years for that department, that this will cost the government much more than
what they're going to save on these closures and take away the service to
the people of this province.

Mr.
Speaker, I present this petition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.

To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly
sheweth:

WHEREAS government has once again cut the libraries budget, forcing the
closure of 54 libraries; and

WHEREAS libraries are often the backbone of their communities, especially
for those with little access to government services where they offer
learning opportunities and computer access; and

WHEREAS libraries and librarians are critical in efforts to improve the
province's literacy levels which are among the lowest in Canada; and

WHEREAS already strapped municipalities are not in a position to take over
the operation and cost of libraries;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to keep these libraries open and work
on a long-term plan to strengthen the library system.

And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

These petitions, Mr. Speaker, continue to come into our office. People
around the province are absolutely concerned about the closure of the 54
libraries, whether or not it is happening in their community.

Today, we have people from Gander, from Fox Harbour, from Paradise, from
Logy Bay, from CBS, people from St. John's, Upper Island Cove and one person
who identifies herself as working poor. These are people who are sending in
the petitions. Besides the petitions that we're getting, they are being
backed up by people who may or may not have signed petitions, but who are
speaking out loudly.

The
letters to the editor in the paper continue. We have people from the
university, professors in the department of English, professors in the
Department of Education all speaking out.

The
Minister of Education has said repeatedly that there's a regionalization
going on. One of the letters in the paper from a very professional librarian
has a question, well, what is that plan for regionalization? Regionalization
means nothing in and of itself. What is the plan? The plan seems to be
nothing, Mr. Speaker. That's what's concerning people.

The
Minister of Education has also repeatedly said that the communities can take
it over, the towns can take it over, yet we have mayors speaking out. The
plea from the Mayor of Cartwright is unbelievable. If these people haven't
listened to it, the government side of the House haven't taken time to
listen to the Mayor of Cartwright pleading for his community, I suggest they
do it. I suggest the ministers listen to it and find out what the mayors are
really saying about the impact on their communities. They cannot carry the
load and they're saying that they have to have the libraries for their
communities.

In
places where you can't use cellphones, you can't get any kind of
communication except through Wi-Fi; the libraries are one of the places
where people can go. They will not be able to access them, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune.

MS. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A
petition to the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and
Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents
humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the people of Fortune Bay  Cape La Hune need to have access to
adequate health care; and

WHEREAS the local clinics in rural areas are the main source of medical
assistance for our people; and

WHEREAS the government has reduced funding and closed the Hermitage clinics
and downgraded services throughout the region;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to reinstate the services to health
care in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr.
Speaker, as we heard in Question Period today, there's $30 million just
sitting to the side for goodness knows what, when for a million dollars we
can keep the health care clinics open in rural Newfoundland and Labrador.
It's absolutely shameful that in this day and age we see a government making
these kinds of decisions. It's certainly very dismaying for rural
Newfoundland and Labrador.

In
fact, the residents of Hermitage, Seal Cove, Gaultois and McCallum are
extremely upset. It's being portrayed by the government opposite well, oh,
it's just a half an hour drive to the next nearest clinic. But that's not
even accurate. It's about a 45-minute drive from Hermitage and about an
hour's drive from Seal Cove. It takes an hour and a half by ferry from
McCallum to even land in Hermitage or a half an hour by ferry from Gaultois
to even land in Hermitage.

At
the same time, we're seeing visitation to my island communities, which have
no way in and out other than by ferry from twice a month down to once a
month. At the same time as they are closing the clinic and decreasing
services, they're cutting two nurses in the Harbour Breton hospital, sending
an additional 1,000 people their way and taking two nurses out of the
system, Mr. Speaker.

All
of us are at a loss as to how the Department of Health can justify mandating
Central Health to make such drastic cuts in rural areas. We strongly feel
that this government is being very punitive to rural Newfoundland and
Labrador, and we're very worried about the future of Newfoundland and
Labrador with this government at the helm.

Certainly, if you look to my district, with the increase in aquaculture in
our area we do have a higher volume of traffic. We have a larger workforce.
We have an increased risk, I guess, at the plant which is operating flat out
all the time  a wonderful thing  but now if there's an industrial
accident, almost an hour away from a hospital. This can be a matter of life
or death, Mr. Speaker, and it is going to be too late after something
happens.

In
the mayor's letter that he recently sent to the minister  and I truly hope
that the minister responds timely and favourably and grants their request
for a meeting to discuss this most serious issue  he asks why we are being
looked at as second-class citizens. We deserve health care, just like the
rest of the province. We can't be dismissed just because we live in rural
communities. Rural communities, Mr. Speaker, make up over half of this
province.

We
will continue to fight until this government recognizes rural Newfoundland
and Labrador is just as important as anywhere else and we deserve health
care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.

I
applaud my colleague here on the side of me for standing up for people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: To the hon. House of
Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament
assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the federal government cannot justify discriminating against
Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in determining the dates of the
recreational food fishery;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge the government to be vocal in calling the
Government of Canada to extend the recreational food fishery in Newfoundland
and Labrador to promote fairness, safety and tourism in our province.

And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Every week since we started in the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, I
presented this petition. I'm going to continue to present it. Everywhere I
go people are asking the question: Where are we to? I'm sure the Member for
St. Barbe  L'Anse aux Meadows hears it every time he comes out, I'm sure
the people in St. Anthony, I'm sure the people on the Northern Peninsula,
I'm sure the people in Bonavista  we want to know where are Members are and
where the Minister of Fisheries is in trying to get this out.

This
is about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, about who we are as a people.
It's about a right that we had and our forefathers had for years to go out
and catch a fish in safety.

The
biggest thing about this whole thing, Mr. Speaker, is the safety aspect of
it. The federal government issues three weeks a year to go out in July, then
a couple of weeks in September to go out. In September, hardly anybody gets
out because it's too rough to go out there. The people who do go out, they
risk their lives every day to go out and catch a few fish.

All
we're asking is for our government to advocate to the federal government,
talk to your cousins and ask them if they can put this forward for the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a safety issue and we want to see
that our fisherman and our people can go out on the water like everybody
else in Atlantic Canada and catch a cod.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This, too, is a petition that has been presented many times, but we have to
continue on.

To
the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in
Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of
Newfoundland and Labrador humbly sheweth:

WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy as introduced in
Budget 2016 unfairly targets the
middle class; and

WHEREAS the Deficit Reduction Levy asks low-income earners to pay more than
their fair share instead of increasing taxes to high-income earners;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the
House of Assembly to urge government to immediately stop the introduction of
the temporary Deficit Reduction Levy.

And
as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr.
Speaker, on a personal note, I've joked with a couple Members opposite that
the word levy and anything that rhymes with it is becoming a bit more
challenging. We're faced with a situation where you run into on a daily
basis  I guess there doesn't be a day that passes that people don't discuss
it. Their fear, their issue is  and I keep to the basics, the low level;
it's the people on the ground who really matter. They keep saying: Why isn't
anybody listening?

The
Third Party has made a private Member's motion for this week. We all on this
side of the House continually, every opportunity we get  I've had hundreds
of emails, as does most Members in this House. That seems to be the real
bone of contention.

I
guess to put it in context, what stuck out to me last week, I spoke to a
lawyer, a government worker, a teacher and just your regular run of the
mill, your average person, every one of those people, no matter what their
income levels, from top to bottom, complained about the levy, head tax,
cover charge  they used these terms, not me.

I
know that Members opposite probably turned the mute button on this issue,
and it will come to light as we proceed through this session, but they
should stop and  again, I use the words pause and reflect, because this is
a huge issue. In addition to everything else in this budget, the levy is 
I've never seen such a lightning rod for anger in people. It amazes me; it
really does amaze me how Members opposite don't take this more seriously.

I
know one Member presented a petition on this exact issue from his
constituents, and I applaud the Member for that, but I wish the entire
government opposite would take this matter more seriously and listen to the
people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: I call Orders of the
Day, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, for leave to introduce a bill
entitled, An Act To Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The House
Of Assembly. (Bill 27)

I
further move that the said bill be now read a first time.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded
by the hon. the Government House Leader that they have leave to introduce a
bill entitled, An Act To Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The
House Of Assembly and that this bill be now read a first time.

Is
it the pleasure of the House that the minister shall have leave to introduce
the bill?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

Motion, the hon. the Government House Leader to introduce a bill, An Act To
Amend The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The House of Assembly,
carried. (Bill 27)

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Amend
The Law Respecting Statutory Offices Of The House Of Assembly. (Bill 27)

MR. SPEAKER: This bill has now been
read a first time.

When
shall the said bill be read a second time?

MR. A. PARSONS: Tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: Tomorrow.

On
motion, Bill 27 read a first time, ordered read a second time on tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 1.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded
that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole and that I do
now leave the Chair to debate Bill 1.

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr.
Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the
Whole

CHAIR (Dempster): Order, please!

We
are now considering Bill 1, An Act To Establish An Independent Appointments
Commission And To Require A Merit-Based Process For Various Appointments.

A
bill, An Act To Establish An Independent Appointments Commission And To
Require A Merit-Based Process For Various Appointments. (Bill 1)

CLERK:
Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The
hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As
for this bill, it's been a while now since we had a briefing on it, so I
guess I first should thank the people who provided us with the briefing.

This
act, and the proposed Independent Appointments Commission, when in fact the
bill only serves to create a commission which will recommend appointments.
So it's not making appointments. It's going to give a list that will be
considered further up the line.

When
you call something an Appointments Commission, the words appointments and
commission, you'd think that the decision would be more substantive. They're
actually just recommending for appointments to be made eventually by
Cabinet. They will be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which is
Cabinet, and which in turn is politicians.

If
the Liberal government is serious about taking the politics out of
appointments  and it's something that was campaigned heavily on. I remember
hearing the commitment. It was kind of interesting when I heard the Premier
during the campaign state how they were going to do that. I'm always open to
new ideas. When I heard that being said  I wasn't a sitting Member in the
last Legislature  out on the campaign trail I used to think it sounded
great.

You
take the politics out of appointments, but as you get digging into the bill
you start to realize that in theory  I guess it's a bit of window dressing.
It looks like you may be taking the politics out of appointments but when
you dig down, the way the bill is presented to us anyway, it's very
questionable how much politics is actually going to come out of these
appointments, Madam Chair.

As I
said, if this was something they promised to do, then wouldn't they take the
politicians out of the appointment process altogether? Change the
legislation; change the regulations to show that the appointments were made
by a commission, not just recommended by a commission.

You
have a commission, and if you have to set up another Appointments
Commission, at least that would be more rigorous, I guess. They need to have
their own process.

What
I like to refer to sometimes when I have thought about this Appointments
Commission, any people who are familiar who have been in the public service
know that you go to the Public Service Commission, you apply for a position,
you're narrowed down  you apply I guess and they do the search down. They
identify X number of people to do interviews. There's a matrix; there is an
actual scoring system. So if people have an issue, everyone is entitled to
go back and say: Why didn't I score higher? Why did I not get the position?
Where did I land?

It
is incumbent upon the Public Service Commission to meet with those people
and go over where their weakness were, tell them what they scored, tell them
what they could improve upon. It's more of an open process. Even when the
decisions come up the line  and I've been seeing that before; you have your
recommended candidates but they are scored and you could have a bona fide
reason not to pick number one.

There are times that has happened, but usually there is a process in place
and you have justify why you are not picking the first person, if you're
going through a matrix as the Public Service Commission does follow. If
you're going to just take an Appointments Commission, you're going to submit
a batch of names, whoever wants to apply and you're just going to recommend
some people from that to send it up the line to Cabinet, again, to me, it
doesn't sound like politics has been taken out of appointments because we
all know Cabinet ultimately makes decisions, the way it stands today.

Governments are elected, so if you want to call politics as politics  but
there is no doubt; anything that goes to the Cabinet room, politics does
play a role. If you're going to have something that's independent, it should
be independent of Cabinet and independent of government.

Before I move on, I hear Members opposite will get up, and I heard it today
 again, I distance myself from that because I didn't appoint anyone in my
previous life, so I can pretty well talk freely on that one. It's not what
this former government done; it's not the process they used. It's thrown
back as we're going to do it better.

I
get that to a certain degree, Madam Chair, but still, it is what you
promised as a government. This government came up with this promise, our
current Premier and all elected Members. This wasn't something that the
former government done; this is something that the new government committed
to doing. I think that's a big difference because I suppose we learn  back
in 2003 when the former government was there, the new government took over
and done things differently and you hear that banter back and forth; but, on
this case here, yes the former government and every government prior to this
current government, that's the way these appointments are done.

Now
you've committed to changing the process, which is really a big moment
because this is Bill 1 to a new government. Bill 1 is usually a watershed.
It's your bill that you stand by.

During the election, like I just said earlier, I commended the current
Premier of the day for coming out and bringing that in. I really did
honestly say it. I'm not saying it just for shallow words. I thought it was
neat because personally that was something that  did you always pick the
best person for some of those positions? On a total just personal situation,
I used to look sometimes and wonder that a lot myself. So I commended the
Premier for bringing that forward. I thought it was pretty innovative.

Again, though, it makes you wonder is this legislation for the sake of
fulfilling an election promise. I was a bit surprised when we went in and
did that debriefing on it. The Members and government officials did a good
job, but there were a lot of blanks not filled in. You start realizing, as
my colleague for Mount Pearl North earlier tabled with the possible
amendments, there were a lot of issues. This bill sounds great on paper, but
when you start looking at it, it does require a lot of adjustments, I think,
for this to be truly an Independent Appointments Commission.

As I
said, the legislation is for the sake of fulfilling an election promise,
especially as it does nothing to alter who makes the appointment to alter
who makes the ultimate decision. As I just said, that decision will rest
Cabinet. Is this commission nothing more than window dressing? That remains
to be seen. Madam Chair, we feel on this side of the House that this bill
has a lot of weaknesses.

Government has been seen to be the government of inaction so far. As it was
stated last week by another Member on this side of the House, they finally
kept their promise on one of the bills they passed. It was a bit of
tongue-in-cheek, but a lot of people in the public questioned the same
thing. When are we going to see a lot of these promises that government has
been campaigning on, boasting on, yet they haven't delivered on.

This
legislation and the commission it will create have no teeth, no way to
ensure the recommendations are followed. It is inactive legislation, much
like the inactive government. The Cabinet has traditionally retained the
power to make appointments to key position. As I said, a Member opposite
said that earlier. That's the way it's been done forever, back to when we
became a part of Canada. This has always gone through Cabinet.

Because the First Minister and other Cabinets  a collective response for
leading the provincial government and setting the direction of policy.
They're not accountable to the people of the House during elections. Again,
it comes back to every Cabinet needs to ensure that all those in leadership
positions, at agencies, commissions, Crown corporations throughout the
government are not just qualified, skilled, experienced or proven and
trustworthy, but also capable of working collaboratively with government and
not cross purposes. Sharing the vision and objectives of the government is
part of being qualified; a team divided against itself could not stand.

Yes,
there are roles where you want antagonists, people who want to be
independent and hold government up to scrutiny of criticism. For example,
the Auditor General, the Child and Youth Advocate, the Citizens'
Representative and soon to be the new seniors' advocate, are in such roles.
We'd also like to see a veterans' advocate, but I guess you can't have it
all.

That's why they're appointed by the House. If you're appointed by the House,
it's intended to be taking Cabinet, taking the politics of out of it. You're
appointed by the House, and those positions are appointed by the House for
that reason, because they're not supposed to be on government's side.
They're supposed to be speaking for the general public, the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PETTEN: They're expected to be
critical of government, but agencies and commissions and Crown corporations


AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Agencies and commissions and Crown corporations are entities that do work of
government. They are part of a team running this province. They are expected
to work collaboratively and smoothly with the administration to implement
the administration of policies to achieve its goals in the context of sound,
corporate management.

Obviously, Madam Chair, it's not in any Cabinet's interest to appoint
political friends who are not qualified to do the job because the work will
not get done effectively and Cabinet will bear the blame and the shame.

There are many examples where Liberal governments and PC governments have
appointed individuals who have worked very closely with the administration
in the past and that would be considered political friends. Over the years,
both governments  when it's their turn in power  have appointed people and
they've gotten their share of criticism for it. Some of those appointments
have not been bad appointments.

You
can have your banter, but if you want to truly make this independent and
truly take the politics out of everything, do that. Put this Appointments
Commission  remove it so Cabinet doesn't decide. Put it in the hands of a
truly independent commission to do independent appointments.

I
know Members opposite always like to refer to the past or what's happening
behind the scenes, but that's not where we are today. We're debating Bill 1,
which I want to remind the government again, it is their watershed bill. It
is their first bill they're bringing in as a new government.

Ironically, it was brought in and we were  back in March it seemed like it
was full steam ahead and then it stopped. There's no doubt, when the
amendments came out it was just put on the Order Paper and it stayed there
until now. So, obviously, it's not a piece of legislation that probably
government wants or proud of, as they boasted in the beginning because maybe
they too realize there's probably a lot of work to be done on this bill.

Again, as the Opposition over here, we're not saying it's a horrible thing.
We're saying this bill needs to be tightened up more. It sounds nice on
paper to have an Independent Appointments Commission but it means nothing on
paper unless it's truly independent. Right now, the public will say, you'll
come out and you'll pass a bill and you'll make it all sound great. When it
comes to practice, we all know where the end result happens. It happens in
the Cabinet room.

Any
decision coming out of the Cabinet room, if they're not political  I can't
see them not being political, but if they're done by an Independent
Appointments Commission and then they are brought into the House to be voted
on, that to me is an independent process. It's one we should all embrace
because it's your Bill 1, it's your watershed bill. It's one that you should
be moving in the direction of doing that instead  again, it's fine to get
up here, and we'll hear it. No doubt, we'll hear lots of that, what you did
or what you did in the past and all this. That's not where we are.

We're not actually opposed to this legislation. We're just opposed to the
legislation as it stands now and the way it's written. We have issues with 
as you say, we have amendments coming. Those amendments are meant to address
the concerns we have.

The
bill as it stands right now is one we don't support, but the legislation,
the idea of that legislation is one we're open to discussing. At the end of
the day, we'd love to see an Independent Appointments Commission that is
truly independent and will do the work that it's required to do and no
political interference.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the
hon. Member for St. John 's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you.

Just
giving notice that we will be doing amendments to subclause 6(3) and
subclause 9(1).

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just
following suit, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has just indicated
which clauses that she intends to introduce amendments for. Out of respect
for the House process and hopefully to allow things to move smoothly this
afternoon at the Table, I'll indicate as well some of the clauses that we
intend to propose amendments for: clause 2(c), clause 6(3)  I'm sorry, the
Leader of the NDP indicated 6(3), so we may bring forward an additional
amendment to 6(3) as well  6(4), 6(7), 7(4) 7(6) 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUTCHINGS: We gave a copy 

MR. KENT: Yes, you have this list
that I'm reading from as well. I know the Table Officers do as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS. MICHAEL: That's an amendment.

MR. KENT: It is still an amendment,
yes.

It
is 9(2)(b); 10(2); 11(2); 13(1)  as you can see, I've been writing all
weekend, Madam Chair  13(3) and (4); 13(5); 15(1) and 16 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. KENT: A Member opposite just
suggested we write a new bill. That would make a lot more sense, Madam
Chair, than what we're going to do here this afternoon.

There are a couple of amendments to 19(4), which affect the
Public Service Commission Act 21(3) and 21(4), and also 19(5) which
relates to Schedule C of Public
Service Commission Act; and we will also reserve the right to bring in
amendments to the Schedule and, perhaps, the long title, depending on how
debate unfolds today and perhaps in subsequent days in this House.

So
those are the amendments we intend to introduce. I won't prolong discussion
on clause 1, and I look forward to working with the other parties in the
House as we proceed through the Committee stage of debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Government
House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam
Chair.

I'll
speak to clause 1 just briefly as we move on and I will say to the Members
opposite, I appreciate you submitting your amendments in advance. I can say
that we are looking at this now because we do want the best piece of
legislation possible.

I'm
going to respond to the Member for CBS's comments first of all. I think what
he said is that he disagrees with this bill and won't be supporting this
bill. That's how I took it. I took it so that the Official Opposition
disagrees with the concept of having a more rigorous, merit-based process to
the appointment of individuals to positions. If that's the case, if I'm
hearing that wrong, then I find that very, very unfortunate and I'll let the
Members opposite discuss that.

I
don't want to belabour the point because we have had an opportunity. We had
a press conference on this, there were briefings on and we had second
reading on it. But I will address one point just so the Member realizes. He
said well, we're in here now talking about this and it was full steam ahead
at first, but he has to realize that actually I think we discussed this just
during the first couple of weeks that this House was in session. Then I
think we went on the traditional Easter Break where there's nothing
discussed in this House of Assembly because the House is not open. Since
that time, again, I think we all realize what we've been discussing, which
is the budget. So it's not a case of not wanting to discuss something; it's
a case of there are certain things you have to do at a time certain time.

We're extremely proud of this piece of legislation. I think somebody in the
Official Opposition's staff office might be out tweeting about it and saying
that I said it was a flawed bill. Just in case, if they're going to quote
me, just get it accurate. What I said was if it's flawed, it's still 10
times better than what the previous government had, which was nothing. I say
to the staffers out there: If you're going to tweet, get it accurate. If you
don't want to get it accurate, I can't help you there. You do what you got
to do. What I've said  and thankfully everything that we say is recorded in
Hansard.

To
go back to the general subject of what the Member is discussing, he's saying
this is something we campaigned on. It's an independent process, but we
don't think they've done enough. They've haven't gotten the politics all out
of this; therefore, I can't support it.

As
we've discussed on a number of occasions, I'm willing to speak to this bill
and answer the different clauses, whether they want to amend them or not.
We'll certainly take our time. We have all today, tonight, tomorrow,
tomorrow night and June, that's not a problem. What I will say, though, is
that I'm looking forward to getting into the substantive side. I'm not going
to spend a lot of time talking about it is not good enough.

The
fact is the Member opposite wasn't a part  well, he was a part in the
background. The previous government had every opportunity to do something
and they chose not to. Their process was find somebody, put them in a
position and there was no process.

In
this case, we've laid out that the Public Service Commission is there and
will do screening of applications, merit-based assessments, gender lens;
there's a whole number of screening. Then it goes to an independent board.
This group actually won't be appointed unless it's done through this House,
a resolution that will be also debated in this House, those individuals,
once we ever get to that stage.

I'm
looking forward to that because as I just said to the media, we need to move
this forward. I think the number I have here, the number when we came in 
there are 50 vacancies and 300 expired appointees. That's a significant
number for the number of ABCs we have out there, agencies, boards and
commissions. So we've come in and normally the previous government  what I
would say is that when they wanted something filled, they filled it. How did
you select who it was? I have no idea. One could only guess.

What
I will say is that we want to get this commission up and running. We think
this is a great process. We think that there are checks and balances in
place. We think that there are going to be public reporting components. We
know that there are going to be public reports done on an annual basis. We
know that the IAC itself will go through an IAC process down the road. This
is light years ahead of the previous processes used by any government
before. We think this is a step in the right direction.

I
know the other side is going to oppose certain things. I get that. That, in
many cases, is the job, to oppose. I can say I've been there. What I also
like to think is that when I was on the other side I prided myself on trying
to do what I thought was best, in the legislative sense, of putting forward
amendments. So we'll certainly take all the time that is necessary to debate
and discuss the amendments that are put forward by both sides, to discuss
the pros and cons, why we should or should not do something.

I
welcome the fact that the Deputy Opposition House Leader has suggested a
huge number here. We'll discuss each of these as we go through. I'm sure
they're going to stand up on a number-by-number basis and enter those and
we'll discuss each one of these. If it has merit, then maybe we'll discuss
putting it in. If it doesn't, then we'll disagree and there it is. At the
end of the day, I still think we're going to be at a much, much better place
than where we were previously where it wasn't merit based; it wasn't
independent.

The
other thing  I just had to point this out before I sit down  is that
they've said Cabinet still has a say. As the Member opposite would know,
Cabinet has a duty to govern. The failure to act upon that and to abrogate
your responsibility would go against the whole purpose of governance in the
first place. I know that you want this to go to a select process and I know
you still want the opportunity to have that, but that's not how the
governance process works. What we're doing is vastly improving on the
governance process that existed beforehand.

I
look forward to the debate. I look forward to discussing the substantive
amendments that have been put forward. I'll sit, at this point, and wait for
further commentary.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay East  Bell Island.

MR. PETTEN: Conception Bay South,
Madam Chair.

CHAIR: My apologies.

MR. PETTEN: No problem. Thank you,
Madam Chair.

I
just want to point out a couple of things that the hon. Government House
Leader just pointed out. To clarify, I said we support an Independent
Appointments Commission. We don't support what's being presented on this
Bill 1.

We
do support, with the proper amendments, with the right independence to it 
we do support that. So I just want to clarify, our stance on this side of
the House is we have no problem with an Independent Appointments Commission
as long as it's truly independent. We have amendments put in to try to make
that happen. The text of the bill as it stands today, we don't support it.
We do, though, support an Independent Appointments Commission, if it's truly
independent.

I
won't take up all my time, Madam Chair, but I wanted to clarify that.
Something else that the hon. Government House Leader just pointed out  it's
window dressing; you can say what you want, but it keeps coming back to this
side of the House. As I clearly stated, I commended this government, this
Premier for bringing in  like I said during the election, I thought it was
a decent idea. I started thinking when I saw it first  I think we all kind
of said yeah, it's an interesting option. But basically, this is like the
legitimizing of secret Cabinet decisions.

Now
all of a sudden the Appointments Commission made this, it's going to go to
Cabinet, it's going to come to the House  it's a smoke and mirrors game; it
makes it seem like this has been done independent, which we know that the
way this bill is designed now the Cabinet does not have to take any
recommendation from this committee. That's no different than what's ever
been in place, Madam Chair.

Before everyone knew, those are the rules of the game forever in a day.
Again, it's not about this side of the House. It's not about previous
governments; it's about what's here and now today. It's Bill 1, it's their
bill. It's one that they campaigned on, that their proud of. Again, I'll
just remind everyone. We're not opposed to Bill 1 or an Independent
Appointments Commission as stated in Bill 1; we're just opposed to all of
the loopholes and back doors. As my colleague for Mount Pearl North said
maybe a new bill would be better with these new amendments, then it would be
something that we could sit down and have a conversation about.

This
is government's bill. It's not about previous governments. Whether they be
Liberal or Tory or whatever, this is not about those governments; it's about
what this government here and now that was elected November 30, 2015,
campaigned on. It was one of the centrepieces to their thing, taking the
politics out of appointments.

As I
said and as we will continue to say, we have put these amendments in to
voice those concerns. We have serious concerns with the way this bill is
written. When you have a bill that can go and if they are only basing it on
recommendations, as we all know recommendations are what they are, they are
recommendations. Final decisions if they're made by Cabinet, well that's
where your Independent Appointments Commission is, Madam Chair. It's in the
Cabinet room, not in the Independent Appointments Commission office.

Until they (inaudible) those amendments that we have in place or talk to us
about them, right now we can't support it as it stands, but we are willing
to talk to them if they are willing to bring in some amendments.

Thank you.

CHAIR: My apologies to the
Member for Conception Bay South for wrongly identifying his district.

The
hon. the Member for St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much,
Madam Chair.

Just
to speak briefly to clause 1, which says, This Act may be cited as the
Independent Appointment Commission Act.So that's a telling phrase; it's a telling name.

One
of the things that was in the Liberal platform in 2015  it was their very
first promise, actually  was the creation of a commission to take politics
out of government appointments. Everybody wants that to happen. Everybody
would like to see politics taken out of appointments to the various
government bodies and agencies. People talk about it all the time. How do
you get appointed to these things?

We
have an awful lot of proof in our history here in the House of Assembly for
decades and decades of many appointments being patronage appointments. So
one imagines that's what the government or the Liberals were thinking about
when they put in their election platform that they would take the politics
out of government.

Then
they repeated it again in the Speech from the Throne, because they had the
Independent Appointments Commission in the Speech from the Throne. They
said, This commission will be the first of its kind in Newfoundland and
Labrador, taking the politics out of government appointments. We believe
that appointments to our agencies, boards and commissions should be
merit-based, not politically motivated, as in the past.

So
taking politics out does seem to be something they're really concerned
about. It's a very interesting idea, but as we go through the discussion of
Bill 1, we will be questioning and looking at: Does it really take the
politics out? One of our amendments in particular, which I'll make when we
get to section 6, will be putting in an amendment we think would help take
the politics out. Because right now so much power is in the hands of the
government, they don't even seem to be recognizing where they are holding
power.

In
our first amendment, when we get to it, we'll put something on the table to
propose how to take the politics out in a very real way, in the very first
step of setting up the Commission. The government will prove to us then
whether or not they are serious about taking the politics out when they
decide whether or not to vote for our amendment which we will be putting
forward.

Right now, that's all I want to say. As we go forward I will have more to
say.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for
Cape  St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much,
Madam Chair  and you got the name right, thank you.

I
just want to say a few words on this one, just for a couple minutes. Bill 1,
I got up and spoke a little while ago when we first introduced it here in
the House. Bill 1 to me is  I look at the intent. I agree with the
Government House Leader, the intent of the bill is good. I really do believe
that. I believe the intent of the bill is good, but it's how the bill is put
forward. It's what's in the bill that I really disagree with. I know across
the way there are names slung over here of people that our government
appointed during our tenure in government. I really respect a lot of those
names. They did a great job and they're still doing great jobs, actually, in
some of their portfolios.

It's
not only us. It goes back for years and years and years, since Confederation
really. When you look back  and every day. You'll always see names in the
public. You'll see names like Dicks and Dumaresque and that in the '90s that
were appointed. It's not to say one did it right or one did it wrong.
They're very respectful men and the same thing  are people. Most people who
do get appointed to these commissions and boards are good people. I'm sure
they're doing a fantastic job. The idea and the promise that was made during
the campaign was that this was going to be done independently. That was the
promise that was made.

That's not a promise because this is not what's happening in this bill.
What's happening in the bill basically is that it will all come back to
Cabinet. Now that's not what the promise basically says. The promise they
made in their election platform was that we're going to take out  the words
were: take politics out of appointments. That's what we heard: taking the
politics out of appointments.

Maybe you can do it and maybe there are ways of doing it. I'm hoping people
across the way will look at the amendments we're doing and perhaps we'll
have the best piece of legislation in all of Canada. That's what I'd love to
see come out of this.

When
you say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that you're taking the
politics out of appointments, they look at you to say, okay, so that means
politicians are not going to have the final say in who that person is. The
best possible candidate will be the one that's selected.

I
think that's what everybody looked at when this promise was made to the
people of Newfoundland and Labrador. They said, okay, all these years since
Confederation it was always  and we've heard it. Listen, everybody in this
House and everyone listening at home, it was always said it's not who you
know, it's what you know. You're not going to get a job unless you know
somebody there. That's sad, but do you know what? Today that's leaving
because if you see how people are getting appointed, like no matter what it
is, fire departments and stuff, they don't even use names anymore and stuff
like this. It's a good way of doing things because it's fair. That's the
same thing with this.

We
want the best possible legislation that's available. We want to make sure
when we finish Bill 1, when it comes out that, okay, we got a piece of
legislation in place for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that they
feel confident in. Not something like a Member said earlier, smoke and
mirrors. You want it perceived as, oh, we have this great legislation in
place and everything is hunky-dory, that the people are very, very pleased
with, but down the road things change. What can change in this is that the
Appointments Commission will recommend  now, we can't call them an
Appointments Commission; they should be called a recommendation commission
because they only recommend. They do not appoint. That's the big difference
that we'll see here today is that they do not appoint. You have to remember
that it's a recommendation.

Then
what happens, they'll recommend three people that will go to Cabinet. This
is the part that I'd like to see is that there be some kind of a ranking. So
here are the criteria for the job  and this is what's normally done  and
here's what you need to meet that criteria. It could be anything, your
education, your background experience and stuff like this. Here are the
things we are looking for in that job.

When
you go into most jobs what they'll do, they'll rank you. They say okay, the
first job, education; well that's exactly what we're looking for, education.
So it goes one, two, three, four and how it goes down the line on each one.
At the end, you have three people. These are the three best qualified people
for that job. These are the three best people for that job. Number one, he
or she has everything that we were looking for. Number two, well, we would
like a little bit more experience, but still qualifies and that's why we
selected that person as number two. Number three would be okay, still has
great experience and stuff like that but when we interviewed them, this is
the way we ranked them.

That
doesn't happen at all in this bill. The commission do not give you a
ranking; they just give you three names. Now, one person could be so
qualified, they could have years and years of  and that person is head and
shoulders over everyone else, but it's only that name that goes up to being
a recommendation.

Here's the scary part of the whole bill, and the part that I really don't
understand. These three individuals do not have to be the person that they
choose. After going through this whole process, huge process of getting the
names  it could be hundreds of people, could be 50 people, could be 1,000
people, I don't know, apply for this job, apply for head over this
department, head over this commission, head over whatever. Here they are,
they applied for this and it goes through the whole process through the
recommendation commission, the whole process goes through and those three
people that are after going through the whole process  they don't know
their ranking or anything like that, but their names get forwarded to
Cabinet. And obviously, a good commission are after going out and they're
after finding the three best possible people to do the job.

The
three names go to Cabinet, yet Cabinet, if they don't want them, they can
say no, that's not the person I want. They can appoint somebody completely
different. Now, what is the difference  the Member said smoke and mirrors.
I believe this is smoke and mirrors but this is the worst kind because
you're trying to lead people to believe that you're doing something and
you're not actually doing it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. K. PARSONS: I remember one time a
boss of mine said you've got to make them believe you're telling the truth.
That's what they're trying to do to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
They're trying to make you believe this is independent when it's not. It's
not truly independent because at the end of the day once the appointment
comes out where they are appointing a commission for the Auditor General 
they could have a name that we're going to put in as Auditor General of this
province. The whole process can go right through the whole system. Then all
of a sudden, the three best names after they interview them, they check out
all the references, they checked out their education, checked out their
experience, checked out everything, and we have three really good candidates
to do that, these three names get put up to Cabinet.

The
Cabinet  before it all started  probably said this guy would be a great
guy or this lady would be a great person, and that name they could have
there too. Let me tell you, I am not saying that person wouldn't be
qualified because I'm sure you wouldn't appoint somebody to the Auditor
General's portfolio if they weren't qualified. I mean, that's a huge
position and you really need to know what you're doing to be the Auditor
General. I applaud Mr. Paddon and all Auditors General, Mr. Noseworthy and
everyone else who I dealt with since I've been here. I was on the Public
Accounts Committee since I've been elected and I have to tell you they do a
fantastic job.

My
point being is that we could have three really good candidates  this is the
problem with the whole bill. This is the gist for me because I agree with us
taking politics out, like the promise was. The promise was to take politics
out of appointments. Those were the words the Premier used. Those were the
words that were in your red book. Those were the words when you knocked on
doors and they talked about people getting appointed for everything and you
had to know somebody to get a job, those were the words you used to the
people in the province.

That's not what's happening here at all. What's happening here is you can
have you want; this commission is just going to give you a recommendation.
It's going to go up to Cabinet, you're going to sit around the Cabinet table
and you're going to have a person who you have in your mind, this is the one
we want for the job and that person may qualify. Yes, that person may be a
great candidate, but it may not be the three names that were recommended. It
may be someone different.

Here's the worst of it. If you came out publicly and said okay, we have
candidate A, B and C and these are the three people who were recommended for
the position, but we don't want that person because we have another person.
If that was put out publicly, if the public knew that, then maybe the bill
would be okay. If that's what the intent of this bill was to do, was to put
it out into the public and say okay, we disagree with the commission. We
don't agree with A, B, and C because they are not as qualified as the person
we have selected. If that was the case and you could justify it then okay,
but that's not the case. No one will ever know. They'll never know the three
people that goes up to Cabinet, and they'll know if those three people were
the actual ones that were recommended. No one will ever know. It's secrecy
at the worst.

It's
unbelievable that you could even think about doing something like that. It
is even worse than what it was before because you're putting all this
bureaucracy in place and getting all this work done, yet you're cutting her
down and saying no, that's the person we wanted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. K. PARSONS: I say it seriously.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll
join some of my colleagues in taking an opportunity to speak to clause 1 of
the bill and respond to some of the things that have been said so far. I
thank my colleagues for really summing up the fundamental problem we see
with this legislation.

So
when we're talking about clause 1, this is a clause that defines the bills
short title. At this point in time we won't be amending that clause. But the
clause reads: This Act may be cited as the
Independent Appointments Commission
Act. So, for the reasons that my colleagues have outlined, maybe it
would be appropriate at some point in time for us to change the name of the
bill.

I'm
hoping through the course of this debate in Committee we'll make changes
that will make the bill more effective, but to suggest that it's called the
Independent Appointments Commission is incredibly ironic, Madam Chair,
because we're talking about a group that at this point, based on the way
it's proposed, won't be at all independent. And here's the real kicker: It
won't even be able to make appointments.

We
thought maybe it should be called the Liberal recommendations commission or
something like that, or a more cynical name might suggest that it be called
an act to justify Liberal political patronage appointments. But that's
overly cynical.

The
Government House Leader has expressed a willingness to work with us through
this process, so I'll take him at his word. I hope that of the 16 amendments
we've brought forward will all get adopted by government in this House. But
at the very least, I hope a number of will because it will make a flawed
piece of legislation a little bit better.

However, the right thing to do would be to scrap it altogether and start
again. It is so flawed that there are amendments required to virtually every
clause of the bill to make it a sensible piece of legislation. Even then,
it's still not the optimal approach.

Much
like the recent budget, it would be far better to admit you got it wrong,
throw it out and start over. That would be the right approach to take with
this Independent Appointments
Commission Act. In the absence of doing that, then we need to do our
best to try and make this legislation at least a bit more sensible and
workable.

We
want to ensure the commission is truly independent, that it's impartial,
that it's accountable and that it's effective. So that is why we will be
bringing forward amendments to many clauses in this bill. If the bill isn't
significantly amended, then I think a name change would be warranted. The
current bill doesn't create a commission that's independent, doesn't create
a commission that can make appointments.

Just
a general comment on our amendments, they may seem a bit complicated in some
places, but they're intended to be really straightforward. We've laid out
the language, we've consulted with others to try and make sure the
amendments are technically sound. I hope that we'll get an opportunity to
debate each one of them in this hon. House.

The
other point I want to make, Madam Chair, in response to the Government House
Leader's comments, if government had wanted to avoid this kind of process in
the House where we have to introduce an amendment  it's the typical
process: you introduce the amendment, you debate the amendment, you pause to
consider whether the amendment is in order and then you debate the amendment
if it is  there was a better way.

We
didn't have all our amendments finished six weeks ago, but we did provide
some public commentary. I did media interviews where I outlined the kinds of
amendments we were going to bring forward. Now we've got them written, and
today is the first opportunity to present them in this House.

The
bill could have been sent to a legislative review committee, a committee of
this House, with all parties represented. A committee could have been struck
to review the legislation. The beauty of that process would be that we could
go through the bill, clause by clause, and make suggestions, propose
amendments and really understand  get a better sense of what government's
intention is, and maybe make modifications that we could all agree to that
would make the legislation better.

That
process wasn't the one that was chosen, so I just want to be on record that
we did suggest that about six weeks ago when we were going through the
second reading process. I still believe that would have been a better
approach. Nonetheless, we are where we are. We'll go through the traditional
process. We'll introduce amendments.

In
fairness, there have been times where governments in this House have adopted
amendments that have been put forward by the Opposition. I recall during
recent sessions of the House of Assembly that that happened. So I hope today
government will work with us and we'll be able to make some changes that
will make the bill better and put us in a better place.

The
Government House Leader also said that regardless of whether any changes are
made, this process will be better than the one that existed before. Well, I
beg to differ. I have to respectfully disagree with the Government House
Leader because I think we're going to be in a worse place. I believe we're
going to be in a worse place because what this bill does is give Cabinet
power to make appointments which it can do today but then hide behind a veil
of legitimacy. Because of this smoke and mirrors piece of legislation that
is being proposed, now Cabinet ministers will be able to hide behind this
veil of legitimacy and simply appoint whoever they want in secret behind
closed doors. I don't think that's better. I think that's actually worse.

What
we hope to do as we go through this bill is make some changes that make it a
little bit better. It's not ideal. Even if all of our amendments were passed
and even if the amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party were passed,
I still think we're not in a great place and there is a better way. We'll
make the best of a bad situation and try and get the bill to a more sensible
place.

While I still have a few minutes, I'll just make some other comments on the
bill generally. I think it's important to point out that beyond the
application stage, beyond the point where somebody applies to serve on a
board or a committee or a council or a commission, there's nothing about the
process as proposed that's public.

I
also have a problem with the Appointment Commission. The initial five person
commission is going to be appointed by Cabinet then rubberstamped in this
House, but there's a better approach there as wall to have all parties
engaged in making sure that that commission is truly independent. Why not
involve all three parties in the selection and appointment of that
commission?

We
also have some concerns about the entities that are listed in Schedule C,
where some appointments will go through the Public Service Commission. The
Public Service Commission will basically produce a list of applicants they
deem qualified. They'll give the list to a minister and the minister will
simply make the appointments, and not even subject to any kind of Cabinet
process. Now I recall from having served in Cabinet that even routine
appointments would be subject to some kind of Cabinet process, but
apparently that's not the intention of the Liberal government.

When
the Premier presented his flagship piece of legislation  I hope we'll hear
from him during this debate  he indicated that he wanted the best person
for the job. Well, for the big jobs, for the ones that will be subject to
the Independent Appointments Commission, this process will identify a few
qualified people and then let Cabinet pick behind closed doors from that
list that won't even be (inaudible). There's a fundamental problem with
that. If you really want the best person for the job then you have a process
that would truly identify the best person for the job. So we have some
concerns with that.

Because of the Public Service Commission's involvement, I'm worried about
the potential for political interference with the Public Service Commission,
which hasn't traditionally been a problem. The Public Service Commission
does good work, but I'm very concerned about how this is going to play out.
I think it's also important to note that everything the Liberal Appointments
Commission recommends is simply a recommendation. It's non-binding.

Madam Chair, this bill, as it stands, does nothing to take the politics out
of appointments  which is another one of the Premier's famous lines. Over
and over again we've heard this is going to take the politics out of
appointments. Well it does nothing like that at all. This legitimizes a
political process. It's an attempt to legitimize a political process.

Again, we're talking about a commission that will have zero authority to
make appointments. So those are just a few comments. We'll have lots of time
to talk about this bill and talk about the various clauses, but I'm pleased
to have a chance to get up and at least make a few general comments on
clause 1 before we get into the more detailed clauses and specific
appointments that at least two parties in the House will be putting forward.
I hope perhaps even government will acknowledge some of the concerns that
have been brought forward and present some amendments of their own as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for
St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much,
Madam Chair.

Just
a couple of points I want to pick up on, following up my colleague from
Mount Pearl North, and it has to do with the process of working together on
the piece of legislation. I hope we will have an open discussion here in the
Committee of the Whole because when the Government House Leader first came
to us, when we first got the bill, the suggestion was for us to submit
recommendations; if we were going to want things amended to submit those to
the government so they could have a look at them ahead of time and decide
ahead of time what they wanted to do with any amendments we may be
suggesting. When that request was made, our response as one party in the
House was, no, that's not the way we saw that it should work.

If
we use a process that's more common in the legislative system, what would
happen is the act would come to the floor. Then, if there were things in the
act that needed to be discussed in Committee, what happens in Ottawa, for
example  and it's even in our Standing Orders  is that things can get
referred to the all-party committee that would deal with a piece of
legislation.

Rather than having a Committee of the Whole, if we had an all-party
committee that dealt with the kind of legislation we're dealing with today
in Bill 1, then we would take the pieces of the act that we had some
controversy over and pass it on to the all-party committee. The all-party
committee would deal with the points of contention and then jointly agree on
what would come back to the floor of the House. That's how it works in
Ottawa and that's how it works in some of our other provincial Legislatures.

We
don't do it that way. We go through our bill too. We go through second
reading and then everything comes into Committee of the Whole. So a
Committee of the Whole is where we deal with the concerns. Committee of the
Whole is where we put out our suggestions for recommendations.

It's
not letting government know ahead of time what can be problematic and
they're ready for it and they come into the House and there's no real
discussion. This is where we're supposed to look at the things that may be
contentious and where we try to work it through.

Now
I would prefer that we had a process, like they have in the House of Commons
and in other provincial Legislatures, where you actually have an all-party
committee that does the committee discussion in a smaller setting that can
also call in people to be witnesses in the discussion, and call in other
people to come and give their opinion on what the bill is. If we had that
kind of a process, I think it would be a much more open process, but we
don't.

The
most open process we have is the discussion that happens in Committee of the
Whole. Although, our Standing Orders do say that we could do what I'm
suggesting, that we should have standing committees. Our standing committees
for Government Services, Natural Resources and Social Services, those
standing committees can be the committees that would receive something from
the House and be asked to work on. We don't do that.

It's
in our Standing Orders we can do it, we may do it. We don't do it. So when
the Government House Leader came with his suggestion our reaction was, no,
well that's not the normal way we do it. We do it in committee. We bring our
discussions to a committee. That's what we're doing here, and we're happy to
take part in the discussion as it goes on.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: Thank you very much,
Madam Chair.

I
just have a couple of minutes; I had 10 the last time. I just want to talk
to a couple of points because once we get into the amendments we'll be
talking about amendments and the leave. Right now we're just talking about
the bill, the overall bill.

I
want to agree with the Member who just got up and spoke. I'm part of the
All-Party Committee on the Fishery and we've been meeting on a regular
basis. I tell you, it's real good to know that we're all there, it's a
committee and everybody is listening to each other's opinion. Yet,
government does have, at the end of the day with the majority of Members on
that committee, anything that's going to be said or what recommendations
come out, they will have  at the end of the day, the recommendations that
will come will be voted on by government.

An
all-party committee, no matter what, will always be controlled by government
Members because they have the majority of people on those committees. That's
the way it works, but it's a great opportunity for the other parties to put
together ideas and suggestions to the minister and to the people who are on
that committee and work together. That's what an all-party committee does,
it works together to make sure the best possible results will come out.

When
the hon. Member suggested this should be deferred to an all-party committee,
I think that this legislation is important. It's important to the people of
the province. It was so important to the Liberal government during the
election. It was one of their biggest platforms. They raised the
expectations so high  you raised the expectations of people. They really
said, okay, finally  and they voted for it. They voted for you and they
voted you people in your seats over there. That was one of the reasons they
voted, because they wanted change. There's no doubt about that.

They
wanted legislation that was going to come forward that they agreed to, which
made sense to them, that people  rather than who you know, would never come
up again. It would be done through fair, and it would be done independently,
and it would be done by people other than politicians to make the decision
at the end of the day.

That's not saying politicians make the wrong decisions or whatever, or don't
select the right people, but this was a promise. This is what you promised
the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. You promised an independent
commission that would take the politics  and these are the words you used 
out of appointments, but you're not doing it. This bill is a far cry from
what the promise actually was. The promise was that politicians wouldn't
have a say. It would be an independent commission that would determine who
gets the positions within government.

I
don't understand; I really believe it's a step forward we've made in the
last couple of years in the House of Assembly with all-party committees. We
started with mental health and addictions. We decided to set up an all-party
committee with that. Now it's still in the process, but do you know what? It
gives everybody an opportunity who's on that committee to have a say; to sit
down and say these are the things we need to do. This is the best possible
thing.

At
the end of the day, it's government's decision. No matter what happens with
this bill today as we put our recommendations, no matter what happens,
people out there have to understand that at the end of the day the governing
party will say what happens, but we're here to try to make it a better bill.
We're not here just to put out recommendations so we can all sit around and
argue over it all day long. That's not the point of this at all.

The
point we're making here today and the point my Member just made to defer to
an all-party committee is to have the best possible bill that can be out
there. That's what this is about. We want to make sure people have
confidence in this House to say, okay, they're doing the right thing.

Every time you're in government, some people will argue with decisions you
make and whatever, but I hope everybody makes the decisions on doing the
right thing. Doing the right thing would be to make sure we have the best
piece of legislation that's available.

Deferring it to an all-party committee takes the House of Assembly away from
it. It lets people sit down and really give their point of view and people
can say, oh, yes, I understand that. Yes, I can see where you're coming from
and whatnot. That's what we want, and that's what the people want. That's
what you promised. That's a promise you made to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador, that you were going to take the politics out of it. You were
going to have an independent commission that would come and here's the best
person.

At
the end of the day, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want the best
person qualified to do the work for them. No matter if it's the Child and
Youth Advocate, if it's  like I said earlier  the Auditor General.
Whatever it is, we want to make sure the best person qualified is the person
who does it. This bill is not going to do it. It's not going to cut it.

The
other thing, I talked to the Members across the way. This is Bill 1, your
first bit of legislation coming in here to the House of Assembly. This
should be the bill that comes in and says, okay, one of the big promises we
made in this election, we made a huge promise to the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador and we're going to live up to it. We're going to live up to the
promise we promised you. We told you this is what we're going to do. Well,
it doesn't live up to it. It's not even close to living up to it.

I'd
say looking at this, it's almost like you're trying to fool the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador but they're not getting fooled, obviously, because
they're smarter than that. I mean, we hear all the time when we're debating
the budget, you don't understand, the media don't understand, nobody
understands, nobody in this province understands, but I tell you the people
of Newfoundland and Labrador do understand this. They do understand that
unless it's out in the public, unless a commission that's independent from
government makes the appointment that it's clear of government  that's what
you promised. That was the promise that you made to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now,
we can talk about promises, but I'm not going to go there. That was a
promise that you made, and that's what the people of Newfoundland and
Labrador wanted. They really do. They want an independent commission that is
going to be able to say, okay, at the end of the day, the person that's most
recommended to do the job is the person that got selected.

I
ask the people over across the way: Isn't that what you want? We talk about
openness and transparency. How more open and transparent can you be if the
persons that are qualified to do the job are put out there and said these
are the three best candidates to do this position, Cabinet has it and we're
going to look at it and we'll give you our decision tomorrow or the next day
when Cabinet meets?

Is
there something wrong with that, putting it out so people would know? Not to
say okay, give us three names, we'll keep them in the envelope, no one will
ever see who they are, yet the person we wanted all along is not in that
envelope but we're going to take that person because we might not even open
the envelope. How are they going to know? Really, how are the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador going to know that the best qualified person has
that job?

You
want to be independent, you want to show people that you're transparent, you
want to see openness, well, put the proper procedure in place so it is.

You
can go back over years, and I hear people chirping over there now it is what
you did years ago and you did this, but you raised the expectations of the
people  come election time, this was one of your big platforms. You were
going to take it all out. Like again another promise and we know about
promises. But it was another promise that you made to the people of
Newfoundland and Labrador that the politics would come out of appointments.
This is a far cry from what you're doing.

You
really have to be honest with yourself. Maybe when you first brought in the
bill, you looked at it and said yes, this is a great bill; we're doing a
good job and everything else. But when you really go back and look at it,
it's worse than what we had. It really is worse than what we had because you
are giving expectations to three people that you're qualified for the job,
but you aren't getting it because we have a person in mind to do that.
That's what could happen here.

I
know that some of you are over there shaking your heads and agreeing with me
because it can happen, and you know it can happen. Why put that in place?
I'm not saying the person that's selected won't be a good candidate. Anyone
that has to do these jobs, I sure hope they're qualified to do it because I
know a lot of people out there are really qualified to do the job. Why not
be open? Why not be transparent like you promised? Why have it under the
secrecy? That's what this is. This is pure secrecy what you're doing here
now. No one will know. We don't need to tell.

What
does that tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? We don't need to let
you know who the person is, no, no. We don't need you to know that the
person that got selected wasn't one of those three. That's shameful. It
really is.

You're not really giving Newfoundlanders and Labradorians the credit they
deserve. They're smarter than that and they do understand. Many times in
this House of Assembly we hear the words, you don't understand. I tell you,
you've got to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a little bit of
credit because they do. The process is flawed with what you're introducing.
It's really flawed.

There's an opportunity to make it the best piece of legislation in all of
Canada, where we all can sit down and agree at the end of the day this is a
great piece of legislation. The intent is to take politics out of it. The
intent is to be open and transparent. The intent is to have people in
Newfoundland to have confidence in government, have confidence in
politicians. I want them to have confidence in what I do here today and I
want to have confidence in what we do here as a general (inaudible).

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for
Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd
just like to build on my colleague's comments and make a few more comments
about clause 1. I really want to emphasize that this bill does nothing to
take the politics out of appointments. We're talking about a new commission
that isn't independent and has absolutely no authority to make appointments.
There's a fundamental problem that we won't be able to totally fix through
amendments here this afternoon and this evening, but we will try and make it
a little bit better.

One
of the suggestions that have been made is that this is going to be
non-partisan. What's non-partisan about allowing Cabinet Members, individual
ministers, to hand-pick from a list of candidates, whether they're doing it
through the Public Service Commission in the privacy of their offices, or
whether they're doing it through this new Liberal Appointments Commission?
In either case, there's nothing non-partisan about it.

The
Premier says he wants to take politics out of appointments, but Bill 1
ensures that politics always, always, always trumps process. That's a real
challenge for us, Madam Chair.

When
this bill was first introduced, it was highlighted that Cabinet can simply
appoint. Cabinet can simply bypass all of this process that's being laid out
here in Bill 1 and simply appoint who they want. Do you know what government
had to say about that? They said, well, we don't expect that to be a regular
occurrence. Even from the introduction of the bill government acknowledged
that even if this process is smoke and mirrors, we're just going to totally
ignore it and appoint who we need to appoint from time to time, but we won't
do that too often.

Another Cabinet minister suggested during the initial discussion on this
bill, during second reading, that this would be a significant change. Well,
I would argue that as it currently stands, this bill doesn't change
anything. It tries to justify political appointments. As we said during
second reading debate, there are times when government will appoint people,
and so they should. That's part of being government. They received a strong
mandate from people of the province, and yes, sometimes they're going to
make appointments. That's part of carrying out the business of government,
but don't say that you're doing it independently and through this
arm's-length Appointments Commission that isn't independent and can't make
appointments, because that's just simply smoke and mirrors and it is not
accurate.

The
list of names that is being put forward to Cabinet by this new commission
won't be made public. I think that is worth noting as well. So there's an
air of secrecy around this entire process from start to finish beyond the
application stage. If Cabinet chooses to ignore the three recommended names,
then there's no mechanism presently for that to be disclosed, which is one
of the things we will try and address as we propose amendments to the bill.

When
the Premier was questioned on that in the initial news conference he said,
well, those Independent Appointments Commission members can complain or
resign if that happens, if they feel that the process is not being
respected, but hopefully that won't happen too often. He expects that to be
rare. That's all very concerning, Madam Chair.

Another thing that's concerning is that twice in the bill it actually says
that Cabinet can ignore recommendations; Cabinet can do what it wants. So
that's highlighted at two separate points in the legislation that we're
debating here this afternoon.

This
is very much about Cabinet secrecy and Cabinet control. I recall at the news
conference hearing the Premier say, well, that's the way things work. Well,
if you say you're going to do things differently, then your actions have to
reflect that. Unfortunately, Bill 1 doesn't reflect anything new or
different.

How
can you say you're taking the politics out of a process if Cabinet can
simply do what it wants at the end of the day? That's really one of our
fundamental concerns with this whole process. They're setting the stage
already to just go and do what they want by making comments about
extraordinary circumstances and occurrences that are going to be very rare
when the legislation is not followed. It's all very concerning.

If
all decisions ultimately  no matter what process we finalize here today or
tomorrow or whenever we get this bill finished, no matter whether there are
changes made or not, if all the decisions come down to politicians making
appointments behind closed doors, how can you claim that's not political?
How can you claim that's not a political process? I think we should just do
what we say we're going to do, but you can't say you're going to do one
thing and then do another, which is the real problem we have with Bill 1.

When
the Premier kept saying these commission members will resign if Cabinet
doesn't respect the process, that's an incredible red flag from our
perspective, Madam Chair. If you don't like our decisions, you can resign.
That doesn't sound like a legitimate, independent, objective process to me.

Relying on commissioners resigning to ensure the integrity of your process
probably means your process is flawed out of the gates, which is the real
concern we have. You can't possibly say that's independent or you can't
possibly say that's non-political. Cabinet at the end of the day gets to
pick names from a secret list.

The
Finance Minister, during second reading debate said  I think it was during
second reading debate  that she's proud of this piece of work. All I can
say, Madam Chair, is that this bill is a piece of work, there's no doubt
about that. I just wish there was an opportunity to do some more work on it
before we get to this stage of the process. A committee that would have
allowed us to work through this and try and come up with something
meaningful and sensible would have been a good approach if government was
serious about making change, but they're clearly not.

Madam Chair, 130 boards and agencies are exempt from this new Independent
Appointments Commission process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

If
the Education Minister has something to say, he can certainly rise when I'm
done in a few minutes. I look forward to his contribution to the debate as
well. He's been chirping at us throughout Committee of the Whole this
afternoon. Several of my colleagues have commented on that. I'd encourage
him to get up and share his views. We'd welcome that because he has been
notably quiet for the last number of days. We'd welcome his participation in
the debate as well.

As I
was saying before I was interrupted, 130 boards and agencies are exempt from
this new process. So that's a real concern. During the news conference on
this piece of legislation, the government ministers that were there were
asked if they will appoint five high-profile Liberals as the initial
commission, and they didn't deny that. They just said they'll look for the
best people. Well, maybe if you are serious about having an independent,
objective process, let's work together; let's have all parties of the House
play a role in appointing those people.

We'd
still like to get clarity on which agencies, boards and commissions are not
covered. It's an extensive list in the legislation. We still haven't
received a clear answer on which agencies, boards and commissions won't be
impacted by this legislation.

Another concern I'd like to highlight  I only have a minute and a half left
 is it's been said by government that they'll be no added cost to doing all
of this smoke and mirrors exercise. Well, does the Public Service Commission
have that much extra capacity? I don't believe they do, Madam Chair. My
experience tells me that the folks of the Public Service Commission are
quite busy. So how all of this work can be done with no added cost and with
no additional resources is another cause for concern.

Madam Chair, Members of government have referred to this piece of
legislation as groundbreaking. Well, I'd suggest that this is a piece of
legislation that is not at all on solid ground. We'll propose amendments,
which hopefully government will consider, that will make it a bit better,
but at the end of the day I fear it will still be severely flawed.

So
send the whole thing to committee, let's take the politics out of it, let's
all work together to come up with something that's truly independent and
something that can truly make appointments and then we may land in a
sensible place. That's my appeal to government this afternoon, and I look
forward to continuing debate on the clauses of this bill.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for
Cape St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: I just have a couple
of more little points. The Member just brought it forward there, that point.
If we really want to get independent here and have five people that are
selected on this commission, why don't we do it through the all-party
committee? Why don't we just do that? Just pick parts of this that we can do
through committee so people can see that it is an independent commission and
it is people that are  again, as the Member for Mount Pearl North just
stated, this commission is done through appointment of the Premier and
Cabinet and they'll just select the five people that are on this commission.

So
how can the people in the province have faith in the people who are
selected? Why don't we just do this the right way? Why don't we just put it
to an all-party committee and we all come up with suggestions of people who
should be on this commission. I don't know if anyone is going to want to be
on it, to tell you the truth. It's a lot of work. As far as I know, it's
basically a volunteer type thing. The commissioners are not going to get
paid. That's what I understand. It may be a job to get people to serve on
this, I'm not sure.

My
suggestion to the government is if you really want to make this independent,
if you really want to be open and transparent, like I said earlier, why
don't you just put it to an all-party committee? I have Members agreeing
with me. We can have it so that at least when we get to the commission part
of it, the commissioners who are there are people who were selected by
people from an all-party.

For
example, the PCs could put 10 names forward, the NDP could put 10 names
forward and the government could put 20 names forward and we could select
the five best people for that. At the end of the day, you have the majority
of the people on the all-party committee. So at the end of the day, at least
you can have the say you want. You can have the control that, obviously, you
want in this. Why don't you just come out and say, okay, we listened to your
suggestions but the five we are going to select are these five.

At
least it gives us the opportunity to sit down and talk, and say these are
the people who are best for the commission. There are the people who would
be good. We could have five individuals and maybe one that we suggested.
Maybe it could be one that the NDP suggested. It could be three you guys
suggested on this. The NDP may have five excellent names. We could all look
at it and say, listen, those are the five people who should be on this
commission. That makes sense. That person brings this; everybody brings a
little bit.

No
matter what you do on a committee  I've been involved in committees all my
life and it's nice to see people who bring a different perspective. It's
nice to see people bring  wherever I go in any committee I'm on, I always
like to see the youth engaged. I believe today, more so than ever before,
our youth are engaged. That may be one part of it where you're not looking
in this commission. Maybe a young person  and gender, obviously, plays a
huge role.

We
all have the right to sit down and discuss it, not just come out of Cabinet
and say, okay, these are the five people we've selected. Now how did you
come about selecting those five people? Not telling you. No, you're not
going to know. We're not going to tell you. You just take it or leave it,
and we're open, we're transparent. Take it or leave it. Those are the five
people we selected.

Now
how did you come by those selections? Not going to tell you that either. We
don't need to do that. Just take it or leave it. These are the five people
that are going to be there. Have they got any allegiance to this one or that
one? Don't need to tell you that either. Do they work here or did they work
there? Don't need to tell you that either.

It's
the whole piece of the bill and I can't believe you're not getting it. I
can't believe you're not getting what people are saying and why this bill is
so flawed. The intent of the bill is excellent. The intent of the bill, why
the bill was brought in the first place is what it should be brought in for.
What the bill actually does is not even close to what your intent is.

You
promised the people of Newfoundland and Labrador politics out of
appointments. I think those were the exact words you used. I apologize again
for repeating myself, but I have to say it's another broken promise. It's a
huge broken promise because you're trying to fool the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador about it. They're more intelligent than that. They understand.
They see what you're doing. Here it is.

People do understand. They won't understand, they don't understand  if I
hear that anymore in the House of Assembly I'm going to go mad because they
do understand. People do understand. You talk to people every weekend home
in your districts, do they understand? Yes. Well, tell the Minister of
Finance they do understand because no one understands. That's the same thing
in this bill. You've got to 

AN HON. MEMBER: Relevance, relevance.

MR. K. PARSONS: The relevance is the
people do understand what you're trying to do here. The relevance is that
you're trying to put something through that's not what you promised. It's
just like everything you're doing, with the budget and everything else.
Everything you're trying to do.

CHAIR (Lane): Order, please!

I
would remind the Member we're speaking to the bill.

MR. K. PARSONS: Okay, I know. We're
speaking to the bill, but there are a lot of similarities here, Mr. Chair. A
lot of similarities here when I talk about promises and what they promised
and what they're not giving, and what they promised and what they're not
giving and what they promised and what they're not giving. I can say that a
few times more. That's what the whole thing is about here.

The
intent of the bill is fantastic. The intent of the bill is to make people
have confidence in the House of Assembly, make people have confidence in
politicians, make people feel that this is the right way of doing things and
they're doing the right thing in there. But this is not what it's doing.

I'm
going to go back to the five Members that are selected on the commission. I
believe that should be done through an all-party committee. We can put our
suggestions in, you put your suggestions in, the NDP, and let's get the five
best candidates. Why does it have to go  and you may say, well, it's always
done that way, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

My
father used to say, if you're going to do something do it right the first
time. He always said, do it right. When you're going to do it, do it right
the first time. So why not do this right now? Why not do this right now? Why
not just get a piece of legislation that everybody in this province can be
proud of, that everybody in this House of Assembly can walk out through the
door in the evening and say, wow, we did a great job. We have a great piece
of legislation. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to be
pleased with it.

That's not what this is all about because this is more smoke and mirrors.
This is thinking that the people of the province don't understand. They
don't know, but we're doing a real good thing here. This is a wicked piece
of legislation we just did for you. This is wicked, this is unreal. You'll
never know who the selection was. You'll never know who the three people
were but that's okay, you don't need to know that.

The
person that was selected wasn't from the commission. He was one we already
had picked. Now the commissioners, if they don't like it  if the
commissioners don't like it, do you know what they can do? They quit. Wow,
that's great. So they can't say anything, can't do nothing. The only way to
get around that is to quit.

Well, if I was on a commissioner  I don't like quitting on anything. I'm
not a quitter and I don't think most Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are
quitters. They usually go and fight for their rights and they do what it is.
That's why we are what we are as a people. We really are 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. K. PARSONS: We're not quitters.

We
will have hard times coming at us and there may be difficult situations that
come forward to us, but I can tell you right now Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians are not quitters.

I
don't think anyone on this commission will be a quitter either. I really
don't think so. I think they'll voice their concerns and perhaps they'll
say, okay, now maybe the next time when we put the three names together, we
work hard on it, we have interviews, we went through all the candidates that
were available to us, we looked at them all and we found the three best that
we could find that were suitable for the job. But when we put it up to
Cabinet they said, no, that's not the person we want. I don't know if they
can go back and say get us another three. I'm not sure if they'll do that or
if that's what they want, if it's not the three they want because that's
what you're opening this up to.

I
just ask government Members, and I'll sit down now in a second. I just ask
people on the government side to probably do the right thing. How about
doing the right thing? People elected you to do a job for them, to represent
them to the best you can do.

Looking at this bill, obviously, you all know this is a flawed bill. There
are major flaws in this bill. So why don't you do the right thing? Why won't
the right thing be done? We come in every day and we talk to Members across
the way with issues they have in their districts and everything else, and
I'm hoping that they'll do the right thing when it comes to those decisions.

But
this is your first bill. This is the bill you brought in to be your landmark
for four years. This is the number one bill, the one promise that you
promised the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the one big promise you
promised them. They promised a lot of other promises, but the one big one
that they really  the first bill that they came in for and you're letting
them down 

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair reminds the hon. Member his time for speaking has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for
the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The
Member for Cape St. Francis certainly raised some interesting points. I hope
he'll have some time during the debate to expand on those because he was on
to something there. I hope, while he seemed to building some momentum, he'll
rise and continue again.

But
I'd like to pick up on a few things he said. I'd also like to remind all
hon. Members that this debate is not about what we did, or what any other
administration did. This is about what the Liberals said they would do
differently in the mandate document that they were elected on.

It's
the Liberals who said they'd change the way things are done. So they raised
that bar and now the onus is on them to rise to that level. Otherwise, Mr.
Chair, if they fail to do so, if this is just smoke and mirrors, as the
Member has said and not a real change, then their commitment wouldn't be
worth the paper it's written on. That would raise an integrity issue.
Surely, they wouldn't want that to be the case with their very first piece
of legislation, Bill 1.

This
initiative, Mr. Chair, was not a minor commitment. It was about as major as
a commitment could be. It was the very first plank in the 2015 policy red
book, the very first item in the very first section of the red book. So it's
hardly a trivial matter to them, which really makes you wonder how we got to
this point with such a flawed piece of legislation.

So
it's now the very first piece of legislation of their mandate and Bill 1 is
traditionally the keystone bill that you want to define you as an
administration, as a government. It's something that you would expect your
administration to be judged by. Having set expectations exceptionally high
they can't fault us, or fault the media, or fault the public for demanding
that the bill live up to the expectations that they've raised.

Just
building on the comments from the Member for Cape St. Francis, let's see if
their legislation does indeed rise to the level they have set. A big
election promise, let's look at that election promise in more detail and
their red book commitment reads as follows, Restoring Openness, Transparency
and Accountability: Liberals strongly believe the government must be open,
transparent, and accountable. The people of the province deserve to know how
and why government decisions are made. When government is not open,
transparent and accountable, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are denied
their right to the democracy they deserve. The current Premier  his name
is listed; I'm not allowed to say his name in the House and a New Liberal
Government will restore openness, transparency, and accountability to
government through the following actions: 1.1 Take Politics Out of
Government Appointments  interesting indeed.

Government is responsible for appointing senior positions at Crown
corporations, public commissions, and other public agencies. Liberals
believe that these positions should be filled based on merit, not politics.
It's simply a matter of making sure the most qualified person gets the job.
The most qualified person.

A
New Liberal Government will establish an Independent Appointments Commission
to take politics out of government appointments. This nonpartisan commission
will screen candidate, apply a gender lens, and recommend the most qualified
people for appointments, adding a much-needed level of independent review to
the appointment process.

Now,
I don't believe in going through Bill 1  it just jumped to mind here  that
there's any reference to gender lens, that there's any reference to gender
or ensuring diversity. I know that from listening to media reports, the New
Democratic Party will be bringing in an amendment that will address that
issue, and I think that's a good thing. I think it's good that there will be
some further debate and discussion on that particular issue. Because it's
right in the red book that this will viewed through a gender lens, which
implies that there will be something done to ensure gender diversity and
other forms of diversity through this commission.

The
key words in what I just read to you, Mr. Chair, are these: A new Liberal
government will take politics out of government appointments by making sure
the most qualified person gets the job. But it doesn't take the politics out
of appointments. The decisions will all still be made by Cabinet ministers
behind closed doors and by picking a name from a list that is not even
ranked or weighted, and maybe not even picking one of those names at all.
How does that ensure that the most qualified person gets the job? It
doesn't.

The
implication, Mr. Chair, is clear. The implication of what they committed to
is clear. The appointment process would be completely oblivious to political
associations, blindfolded to political links. Just like the blindfolded
statutes in front so many of the world's top courts.

But
even that red book commitment ends a little weakly. Because if you really
want to make sure that the most qualified person gets the job, then wouldn't
you expect the Independent Appointments Commission to do a lot more than
simply make a recommendation? I would think so.

Mr.
Chair, the legislation that we're debating in Committee today, it only
recommends appointments. It does nothing at all to take the politics out of
appointments. Wouldn't you expect the commission and expect the
commissioners to have the power to weed out every unqualified applicant and
maybe even rank remaining applicants and maybe even actually make the
appointment of the most qualified person, even if there is some kind of
rubber-stamping, so to speak, that has to occur?

Obviously, the Liberals aren't prepared to give up that power. So don't say
you're going to do it when the legislation you're bringing forward indicates
otherwise. They want to have the final say. They want to make sure they
don't end up with someone who may be very qualified but isn't capable of
working well with them on their team of leaders.

There may indeed be real risks in relinquishing obligations and abdicating
responsibilities to a commission that is not directly accountable to the
people and in a position to be judged by the people. So these things all
need to be considered.

We
didn't relinquish that obligation or abdicate that responsibility. We made
appointments  as you'll be reminded again during this debate  and we're
prepared to defend them in this House and outside of this House as well,
because we were elected to govern and the new administration has been
elected to govern as well. It's the Liberals who said the process was wrong.
It's the Liberals who set new expectations. It's the Liberals who said there
must be an independent, merit-based, politically neutral appointments
process.

All
we're saying here today as we debate clause 1, Mr. Chair, is deliver on what
you promised. The bill doesn't do that, so you can't have it both ways.
Either it's independent or it's not; either it's meaningful change or it's
not. If it's not, then isn't it really just a sham? That's the point my
colleagues are trying to make as we have this opportunity to debate clause 1
today.

If
you truly want independent appointments, then there are two separate issues
that I think we need to consider. First of all, how independent will the
commission gatekeepers actually be? Secondly, how much power will the
commission gatekeepers actually have?

That
first issue is critical. How will we ensure that the gatekeepers are indeed
truly independent and neutral and qualified to make sound judgements about
the qualifications of candidates for leadership posts in this province?
Well, that depends entirely on who will be on the commission, on how they'll
be appointed and how their independence will be assured.

Who
are the gatekeepers? The bill outlines that and we'll get to that as debate
continues. The bill outlines how the commission will be appointed. I will
save some of my comments on that for when we get to that particular clause.

We
know that five members will be appointed by Cabinet and then be
rubber-stamped by this House. So Cabinet will choose people and appoint them
to this commission. Then government, with the majority it has in this House,
will pass a resolution to appoint them.

The
point I want to make, Mr. Chair, is that Cabinet will have the power to
select those gatekeepers and that's interesting. How can the Liberals say
the commission itself will be non-partisan if Cabinet is going to select
them and then use its majority in this House to hire them? If the
gatekeepers themselves are political appointees, then you can't stand here
and argue that the process is non-partisan.

Mr.
Chair, I have some more comments to make on clause 1, but I see my time is
winding down. There are some broad concerns that we have and the debate on
clause 1 gives us an opportunity to highlight those concerns before we get
into the specific amendments that we intend to bring forward. I thank you
once again for an opportunity to speak to this debate on clause 1 as part of
Bill 1 this afternoon.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the
hon. the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development.

MR. KIRBY: Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It's
an honour and privilege for me to stand here and say just a few brief words
about Bill 1, our signature piece of legislation. It is about doing things
very differently, absolutely it is.

Look, we know that the Official Opposition doesn't like this way of doing
things. They don't like this way of appointing people to public service
positions or positions that are supposed to be based on some record of
experience or education or qualification. For 12 years that ended in the
fall, that's not the way the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador appointed
people to lead and to have leadership roles in appointed bodies in
Newfoundland and Labrador.

For
the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the previous administration,
their idea of merit wasn't about having an application-based process where
every Newfoundlander and Labradorian who had qualifications for the position
could apply. It wasn't a process where it would have short listed candidates
for these positions selected through the Public Service Commission. It
wasn't a process like that at all.

If
you look at just the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation it seems
to me that it was a process whereby your qualification to lead a public body
was based on whether you were a past leader of the PC Party of Newfoundland
and Labrador. So how many people in Newfoundland and Labrador has been the
leader of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, not very many, so
not very many of those people in Newfoundland and Labrador were qualified
according to the measure of merit that the previous administration used for
public appointments. That they didn't qualify because of that.

There are other qualifications that the previous administration did use 
I'll give them credit. Other qualifications were past candidate for the
leadership of the PC Party, past minister in the government of the PC Party,
past executive member of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, past
vice-president of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, past treasurer
of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, past secretary of the PC Party
of Newfoundland and Labrador, past member of the executive of the PC Party
of Newfoundland and Labrador, and past president of the PC Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador and I neglected to say past Member of the House of
Assembly in the PC Party caucus. So those were basically most of the orders
of merit that were employed by the previous administration.

MR. KENT: (Inaudible).

MR. KIRBY: I say to the Member for
Mount Pearl North, you had an opportunity to say your peace, now let me have
an opportunity to contribute to the debate as well. He's still chirping over
there, I'm not sure why. I'm just trying to have a debate and counter your
argument and if you don't like what I have to say I encourage you to stand
up afterwards and counter it, but in an orderly way I say.

If
you look at the appointments made by the previous administration, by and
large one of the most significant factors in selecting people to lead public
bodies, to receive significant remuneration, I believe the Chair of the
Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation in particular makes something
in the order of $180,000 a year. That's on the sunshine list.

If
you go to the sunshine list and you look at the individuals who were
selected through the independent process employed by the previous
administration, by and large, some affiliation, either Leader of the PC
Party, candidate for the leadership of the PC Party, a member of their
caucus, somebody who is involved with their executive, some political
activist who was involved, that was how Newfoundlanders and Labradorians
were judged when it came to being able to have an opportunity to use their
skills, their talent, their education, their accumulated ability. That's how
the previous administration used  that's how they appointed people to
public bodies.

You
can hear them all over there. They're all chirping over there now, Mr.
Chair, because of course they don't like to hear this. This, in fact, is the
essence of the truth.

What
we're trying to do here is we're trying to move the province away from a
process and say, well, it's not perfect. Well, I'm not sure what is perfect
but I'm pretty sure having a process whereby positions that are open are
publicly advertised, that people can apply through public competition, that
their credentials are judged by the Public Service Commission, and there's a
short list provided from that. That's pretty good. That's basically how all
job processes work. There's a short list produced.

The
Opposition was saying before the Easter break  so months ago or weeks ago
when they got this legislation, because they had it the whole time. I don't
know why they didn't work on their amendments prior to tabling them here
today, but that's their decision. They had this, and they were saying, why
wouldn't you make this short list of three people public? Why would anybody
want to subject themselves to a process where they'd basically be more or
less publicly ostracized?

When
you apply for a job, do they go and post it on the bulletin board, here's
the unsuccessful applicant for everybody to see? They want it posted in the
newspaper. Why would anybody in their right mind ever want to subject
themselves to that sort of thing? It's absolutely nonsensical when they get
to it.

Now,
the other thing I find extremely interesting here today is that we have the
Member for Mount Pearl North and the Member for Cape St. Francis, and other
Members over there talking about how this should go to an all-party
committee. This should go to some all-party legislative committee. The sort
of all-party legislative committee that for a dozen years in Newfoundland
and Labrador, that crowd denied the House of Assembly to have.

There was one all-party committee that was created, or two all-party
committees. There was fisheries; there was the mental health. At least in
the last four years in the sitting of the House of Assembly, I don't recall
any other ones. That was an initiative of the NDP, certainly not an
initiative of the government. They were quite prepared to vote against that
in Private Members' Day one day until they buckled under the weight of
public opinion and decided to strike the all-party committee.

The
Member for Mount Pearl North, when he was the Minister of Health he stood
there. One hour he spoke against the bill, the next hour he spoke for it.

The
other thing the Member talked about in terms of an all-party committee  the
Member did talk about sending it to an all-party committee. That's what it
was suggested that Muskrat Falls go to, an all-party committee. There was no
all-party committee. They actually refused to let the public utilities board
do its job and review it. So it's certainly not going to any all-party
committee. They thought the debate on Muskrat Falls was to just have it in
here on Private Members' Day.

At
least Bill 1, the bill to create the Independent Appointments Commission to
ensure that we move away from the political cronyism of the past; at least
the bill is being debated in the debate for legislation in the House of
Assembly. For Muskrat Falls, there was no all-party committee. They just
went in here and had a three-hour debate and had Private Members' Day and
that was all it, more or less. There was no all-party committee for that.

There was no all-party committee to create Bill 29 and there was no
all-party committee to repeal Bill 29. The issues that attracted the most
attention in the previous sitting of the Legislature, almost all of the
Members with the exception of the Member for CBS, all those Members were
there. I did not hear one time any of them uttering the words all-party
committee, not at all. Never heard a single word of that uttered.

In
the meantime, like I said, for all of the most significant or most of the
most significant positions that were to be had for people to fill for public
bodies in this province were traded as if they were pieces on a political
chessboard. If you did not have affiliation with the PC Party of
Newfoundland and Labrador, then you could count out any opportunity that you
would have to lead public agencies in this province, and I challenge the
Members to go through.

You
will find the odd person appointed through merit. Certainly there were some;
there's no question about. By and large, you go and look especially at the
positions with the most significant remuneration involved and they
inevitably involve people who ran for the PC leadership, led the PC Party,
sat in the PC caucus, were ministers in the PC government, were a president
or some other position on the PC provincial executive; or were in some ways
connected through the PC Party as somebody who was an activist politically
with them on election campaigns; or people who contributed significant sums
of money to their past election campaigns. That is what the Members opposite
viewed as a merit-based process. That is not a merit-based process. That is
a highly politicized way to do political appointments.

We
made a commitment in the election to stop doing that, and this is the way
that we're challenging to do it. If the Members have better ideas, the
legislation is here and if we have to stay here till 4 tomorrow morning and
debate the amendments they're bringing forward, then that's what we'll do.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the
hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I
find it a bit interesting getting up and as the hon. Member opposite
correctly pointed out, you're right; I wasn't part of the previous
administration and some of the decisions.

You
need to base facts on facts. It's good and it sounds good, and again it's a
bit of theatre. The Minister of Education is great on theatre as we've seen
in the past. There's something about the camera coming on. He's pretty good
in front of a camera, but answering a phone call or an email sometimes can
be challenging.

MR. KIRBY: That's absolutely not
true. How many emails (inaudible)?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PETTEN: Mr. Chair, I gave him the
respect and listened to him, so I hope he gives it to me in turn.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I
would remind the hon. Member that we are debating Bill 1.

MR. PETTEN: I realize that, Mr.
Chair.

You
mentioned about appointments that were made by this former government and
they're merit based, and some of them, if you weren't a supporter of the
party, you never got appointed. I find it interesting when you look at  we
have, for instance, former Liberal Cabinet ministers appointed to the Chief
Electoral Office. We had someone that headed up the Bill 29 review. The
Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transportation and Works were on the
Nalcor board. We had another former high-profile Liberal who was chair of
Nalcor  or, yes, chair of the Nalcor board or Hydro.

So I
don't think that's accurate. They're obviously not PC members. They were
appointed because the government of the day, which was the former
government, felt that these people qualified to do the job. So there was
some merit gone into it. As for making those comments about you had to be 
that's not totally accurate.

We
can go back to the former previous Liberal administrations, as I said
earlier, this has gone on for a long time how these appointments happened to
be made. You're moving forward from  8 o'clock November 30 when the ballots
were in and I guess the verdict was in and this government that won power,
as my colleague for Mount Pearl North rightly said, this was their signature
bill. This was one at the top of the red book of commitments, you taking the
policy out of appointments.

So
from that minute on, this was nothing to do with the former administration,
like I said, no matter what stripe you were. On a go-forward basis to this
new administration, this was their watershed bill, whatever you want to call
it. I think the Member for Mount Pearl said a keystone bill. It was your
bill. It was what you had prescribed to; this is what you had told the
voters.

We've said it many times and I'll repeat it again, it's not that we're
opposed to an Independent Appointments Commission, not at all. We do have
exceptions to how the bill is presented. Our amendments are addressing our
concerns, so we'll see how that translates.

When
you're on the campaign trail, it always sounds good to bring up stuff that 
because this has been an issue. This is not the first time we've mentioned
it, as you've heard in the public. There have been criticisms of governments
over who you appoint, who gets this job, who gets that job, who's head of
this board and who's head of that board.

I'd
like to think over the years  I'll give the governing party from their
former days too. A lot of those appointments are valid appointments. I think
it's an unfair characterization to say that if you're not a supporter of
either party  as I listed off there, the former government, the PC Party
appointed some well-known Liberals. They felt they were very capable and
they got the appointments due to some merit.

It's
kind of unfair to tag someone because they're qualified and they're
appointed by a sitting government that they're automatically supporters of
that government. No doubt, we don't live in glass houses. I do understand
that has happened in the past and that's a reality, but not in its entirety.

It
sounds great when you're talking to the camera and people are listening. It
plays well, I have to say, but let's be fair and compare apples to apples.
It's not a fair comparison. There is some truth but it's not all accurate.
There are some on both sides. I just think that's worth being clarified.

One
other thing I note, and I find it kind of amusing sometimes. We're out in
our districts talking to constituents all the time about their issues and a
lot of people have said over time: What's going on out there? This
government seems like they were  everyone knew they were going in power.
For the last year-and-a-half everyone had them seen as being the government
in waiting, but it seems like they got in and there's no plan.

Well, this was in the front of their book. This was one of their
centrepieces. It's almost like, it sounds good, it plays well, we'll put it
there. All of the sudden, November 30 ballots were counted and you go:
Uh-oh, we're in power. That's the first bill we have to deliver on. Let's
get something on paper. Let's get it out there. Let's get it on the books,
but there was not a lot of thought went into it, Mr. Chair. We've all said
that, and my colleagues have said it here today.

When
you look at the bill, these amendments we're presenting  if anyone across
the way wanted to look at these amendments, they're not earth-shattering.
Everyone can twist it which way they want, but these amendments are made to
make this bill stronger, for the betterment. The intent of this bill is
good, but right now the way it looks is there are a lot of loopholes.

You
bring in an Independent Appointments Commission, how do you go about
questioning the commission about its recommendations? They make these
recommendations, they send them to the Cabinet room, and as I said when I
spoke earlier today, once it leaves any committee or any recommendations in
any department and it goes in the Cabinet room, what comes out of the
Cabinet room and what goes in sometimes are totally different things. That's
what they're elected to do. They're appointed to Cabinet to make those
decisions, and a lot of them are tough decisions.

When
you have officials who are working on  no different than this bill. If you
have officials working on stuff, they push it up. They give it to the
minister who presents it in the Cabinet room. When it comes back out, it
cannot be remotely  other than the name or the number of the bill, or the
number of the document, that may be all the same but when it gets around a
table of 12, 13 people, things happen to change.

Again, it's smoke and mirrors or window dressing, whatever you want to call
it. It's a bill that sounds good, looks good but when you pull back the
layers it's not what it appears. You are going to have this so-called
Independent Appointments Commission that is going to be appointed by
government. It's going to sit down, it's going to take recommendations. Fair
enough. You can send in a list of people who want to apply. You could send
in hundreds or whatever, this commission will then decide who they will
recommend; who they think is the best ones. They will send up a list of
three.

Then
government gets up: we don't like any of these people. Kaboom! We don't like
it. We're going to pick this person. Then there is no reporting mechanism to
tell anyone they changed their mind. That's not the spirit, that's not
independent. That's not the spirit of this bill in my opinion. If the
government were sincere and wanted to take the politics out of appointments
and have an open process, I say I applaud them.

I
need to go back. I want to go back, because one thing I sit here and I
listen to  and we hear it on a daily basis. I'm hearing it again today on
Bill 1. It's what you done. It's what this one done. To me that's amateur
hour, Mr. Chair.

We
all know this government opposite are the ones in power as of November 30.
We're the previous ones. We done, this government I should say  the
previous government done no different than any other government done in
generations. This government took it upon themselves to bring out this
centrepiece of legislation. They are going to make things different, and I
commend them. We all commend them, but don't play those silly games and
looking at us and saying how ye done it differently. That's not what the
public want to hear. I hear it on emails. They're sick of the blame game.

They
want this government that was elected to make decisions, and make decisions
that make sense. We're meant to be a parliament  we're Opposition, we're
supposed to be that opposing voice to say we have amendments. Why don't we
try to strengthen this legislation. That is democracy.

So
pointing the finger across the way I know plays  again, I'll say it plays
well publicly. I understand where it's coming from but it's not going to
make any bill or any legislation or any matter in this House any stronger if
that's what you get up and hear.

Again, this was the legislation that was brought in by this government. It's
Bill 1, and it's one that they should step up to the plate and honour and
bring in amendments, make it a stronger piece of legislation. Do you know
what? If they do all that, Mr. Chair, that's something they could probably
be proud of. Instead, we have a bill full of loopholes. They need to be
stronger. Stand up, tell the people  the people are asking them and we're
asking them again. We can treat this like they treat everything else and we
can just say we know better than ye. As my colleague for Cape St. Francis 
everyone knows better than us. Well, fair enough. If you do, listen to the
people.

These amendments, I think most people would say they make sense. I encourage
government to stand with us or at least talk about our amendments.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the
hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's
been interesting to see where the debate has gone over the last little
while. I thank the Member for Conception Bay South for adding to the debate.
I do need to pick up on a couple of the comments that the Education Minister
made. He seems a little riled up, so hopefully he'll simmer down a little
bit as the evening goes on.

He
talked about a sunshine list. Mr. Chair, the sunshine list is in the draft
Open Government Action Plan. There have been lots of public calls for a
sunshine list 

CHAIR: I remind the hon. Member
that we are speaking to Bill 1.

MR. KENT: We are, and the Education
Minister referenced it in his comments on Bill 1. I'd encourage government
to get on with it and do it, if you're going to reference it in debate here
in this House of Assembly.

There was also lots of commentary about past presidents of the PC Party,
which is really entertaining when it's coming from the past president of the
NDP. There is something humorous about that. It's good to have a couple of
light moments during a rather serious debate.

The
debate is not about past appointments or past presidents of parties. The
point is here that the Liberals, the current government, promised a
non-political process and now they're not delivering on it. It's the latest
broken promise by this administration.

This
legislation is a joke, Mr. Chair. It's severely flawed. We're going to
propose a number of amendments to try and make it a little bit better, but
it's still flawed. Here we have another example, a sad example of this
Liberal government saying one thing and then doing something completely
different. That's what we see here in Bill 1. That seems to be the Liberal
way of doing things. It's unfortunate. I think people are on to it. They see
through it. We do have to stand and challenge that.

Let
me talk a little bit about some of the issues around openness and
accountability as it relates to the bill. We have many concerns about the
proposed Appointments Commission and that is why we're advocating for
changes today.

Just
to give you an example, government appointees must swear an oath or make an
affirmation to be impartial. So maybe government should make changes to Bill
1 to require the appointments commissioners to swear an oath, or make an
affirmation to be impartial. It's a small step, but it's an example of
something that can be done to make the bill a little bit better.

Bill
1 will require the Appointments Commission, in consultation with the Public
Service Commission, to develop a merit-based process to guide them in their
work. That means that they're going to have to come up with a definition of
merit for the purposes of the act, and a way to measure a merit as well.

So
maybe government should require, in this legislation, annual reviews to
determine the merit principle was actually applied in every case that an
appointment was made. And maybe that review should be published in the
interest of openness, transparency and accountability.

One
major concern that I know people have about this legislation is that Bill 1
allows the Cabinet to ignore the names that are submitted by the
Appointments Commission and appoint somebody else in secrecy. So if you're
going to ignore the recommended candidates list, I think that is something
that should be disclosed. Maybe a change can be made to require Cabinet to
make a public disclosure every time the person that they appoint isn't on
the list of candidates recommended by the commission.

I'm
sure we'll hear it said well, there are privacy issues around that. Well,
there'd be no need to reveal who the commission recommended, only that
Cabinet accepted none of them and made a different appointment.

Bill
1 also allows Cabinet to bypass their Appointments Commission whenever
circumstances are deemed to be urgent or extenuating. So if they're going to
do that, and it's clear that will happen because it's been referenced
several times by the Premier and by ministers, would government consider
requiring Cabinet to notify the public immediately whenever it bypasses the
Appointments Commission to make an appointment in such circumstances?

So
these are ideas that might make the process a little bit more legitimate and
sensible, as opposed to simply saying you're going to do one thing and then
doing something completely different.

There's going to be a five-year statutory review of this act. I think the
results of that review should be publicly released, not just simply gone to
Cabinet for consideration, but send it to the Speaker and have the Speaker
release it. Bill 1 calls for that review every five years and says that it
will be sent to Cabinet. So if you're serious about being open and
transparent and impartial and independent, then have that sent to the
Speaker of the House for public release instead of to a secret Cabinet
review. Those are just examples of things that can be done to make the
legislation, potentially, a bit better.

In
my previous time speaking, I talked about some of the challenges with the
bill, as proposed, and how if the gatekeepers themselves are political
appointees, then the process is anything but non-partisan.

What
happens if somebody leaves the commission while the House isn't in session?
That is addressed elsewhere in the legislation and we'll get to that during
debate, but one concern I have is that Cabinet can appoint a replacement
commissioner and then bring that to the House within 10 sitting days of the
next sitting of the House. If it is several months before the House sits,
months could pass without any disclosure of that.

So
it is another example of where this legislation is severely flawed because
at certain times of the year that could be a very long time. Cabinet could
fill a vacancy in June, if the House wasn't open, and not have it confirmed
here in the Legislature until November, potentially. Or fill a vacancy at
Christmastime and not have it confirmed until probably close to April. These
are the kind of issues that exist with this flawed piece of legislation.

How
are these gatekeepers going to be held to account? Well, if we don't like a
Cabinet appointment, we can question the Cabinet ministers today; but, from
now on, the Cabinet is simply going to say, well, the commission recommended
the person. Therefore, they won't take responsibility.

How
do we question the commission about its recommendations? It's one step
removed from scrutiny and from accountability, but the commission, in
theory, could be just as partisan as the Cabinet, since the Cabinet selected
the members and used its majority here in the House to hire them. There's a
real challenge with that as well. What all that means is that this new
process will be less accountable than the process that exists today. I think
there's some irony in that.

Not
every appointment for every entity listed in the act will actually go to the
commission for review. I think that needs to be highlighted while we're
debating clause 1 here as well. That's really interesting because some of
the appointments will sidestep the commission's scrutiny. That is a real
concern.

A
Cabinet minister or Cabinet as a whole can say, well, the situation is
urgent or circumstances are extenuating and skip the entire commission
process. When will government use that escape clause? Would this be the
escape clause that government would have used to justify some of the
appointments they've already made?

I'm
not going to get into names, as some people have done here this afternoon,
not at this point during the debate. I'd rather stay focused on the bill and
on the intent of this legislation and some of the issues with the
legislation. There have been political appointments made already by this
administration which needs to be considered as we're going through this
debate as well.

It
will be interesting to see when government chooses to argue that
circumstances are urgent or extenuating. Remember that these appointments
are for key posts in agencies, commissions and Crown corporations so they're
vital, and there's always going to be some urgency around filling them.

Let's suppose the government wants to sidestep the commission. They could
justify moving ahead and appointing at will, just as governments have done
in the past, simply by saying the situation is urgent or extenuating. This
is another example of problems we see with this legislation.

I
see my time is winding down, Mr. Chair. We do have major concerns. We will
bring forward amendments that will hopefully improve the situation, but it
won't change the fact that this legislation is very flawed and completely
inconsistent with the election promise that the Liberals made back in
November. Another broken promise by this administration and they're only
five months in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the
hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I
would move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit
again.

CHAIR: The motion is that the
Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

On
motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again,
Madam Speaker returned to the Chair.

MADAM SPEAKER (Dempster):
Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

The
hon. the Member for Mount Pearl  Southlands.

MR. LANE: Madam Speaker, the
Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred and have
directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Chair of the
Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the
matters to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask
leave to sit again.

When
shall the report be received?

MR. A. PARSONS: Now.

MADAM SPEAKER: Now.

On
motion, report received and adopted.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the
Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Madam Speaker, number
16 on the Order Paper, I would move that pursuant to Standing Order 11 that
the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., today, Monday, May 16.

Further, number 17 on the Order Paper, I would move pursuant to Standing
Order 11 that the House not adjourn at 10 p.m., today, Monday, May 16.

MADAM SPEAKER: The motion is that
the House do not adjourn at 5:30 today, Monday, May 16 and that the House do
not adjourn today, Monday, at 10 p.m.

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against,
'nay.'

Carried.

The
hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Madam Speaker, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Education, that the House resolve itself
into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 1.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER: The motion is that
the House do now resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider
Bill 1.

Is
it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MADAM SPEAKER: All those against,
'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Madam
Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the
Whole

CHAIR (Lane): Order, please!

We
are debating clause 1 in Bill 1.

A
bill, An Act To Establish An Independent Appointments Commission And To
Require A Merit-Based Process For Various Appointments. (Bill 1).

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the
hon. the Member for the District of Conception Bay East  Bell Island.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BRAZIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's
indeed an honour to stand in his hon. House and speak to Bill 1, the
Independent Appointments Commission
Act. Something that I support, I wholeheartedly support the concept.
I've gone through the bill and I see a number of good items there and good
clauses in it.

I do
have some challenges around it and, no doubt, over the next number of hours,
we'll have some extreme debate around where there are some loopholes there
or where there are some nuances that need to be improved on and how we can
do this so, at the end of the day, the people in this province are confident
that those individuals who get appointed to boards and agencies and get
positions in government where they have influence and have a responsible
position and a responsible duty to fulfill for the people, will actually be
the best people that we could put in place.

I
just want to note again for the people who may have joined us a little bit
later this evening as they're getting home for their supper hour, the bill
would enact an Independent Appointments Commission. I have to give credit.
Back when we were gearing ourselves up for the provincial election, back in
late October and November, and the Liberal Party had put out their red book,
a very inclusive book, it had outlined exactly what they stood for, what
their key objectives would be as a government if they won the government,
what they would move forward on, and exactly what the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador would expect under their regime.

What
I did note, I did see an Independent Appointments Commission. I said,
interesting, so I started to read, particularly in the red book. As I read
it, I said I like the concept here; I like where they're going with this. I
think it's something that's probably been overdue. There is no doubt that my
years as a civil servant in various administrations, I've had ministers come
to me and say: David, can you get some resumes for this particular
committee? Can you have a look at these individuals? We need this filled
out. Then you'd submit it to the respective minister, and then you never
really knew how the decisions were made because some of the names would be
appointed afterwards I hadn't heard about. There would be people who I
thought would probably be the seventh or eighth of the three-panel committee
that would have been selected, so no real understanding exactly what the
merits were, what it was based on.

When
I went out to recruit people, I went out based on the knowledge I had of
people's experience within whatever role it may have been, whatever that
particular committee, their expertise, what they'd done in a previous life,
their commitment to fulfilling whatever that responsibility may be as an
appointee to a commission or a board for government.

A
little caught off guard by it  and again, this is the Liberal
administration, the PC administration. I've had the privilege of referring
people and in some cases, a number of cases, the people I referred or had
their resumes and had them fill out the appointment notice got selected. So
I felt this would be another good step of cleaning that process up, making
it more fluent, but particularly, they caught me, they had me when they kept
saying, we want to restore openness, transparency and accountability. I felt
well, what a great way to do it. This could perhaps be the best act you
could put in place that would at least start the whole process of more
accountability.

We
had started it as an administration about openness and accountability. We
had done that. We had set up a whole line department that would be
responsible for that. We brought in support staff. We worked with agencies
outside of government to ensure information was distributed to people in a
timely fashion and that the information was relevant to what people were
asking.

I
was in to the point of saying: I'm going to follow this through and see
where it goes. So I read a little bit more about what their concept was. I
said: Okay, I could support something like that. If they form the
government, when we get to a point in the House of Assembly, if I'm
fortunate enough to be elected, then I look forward to seeing where they're
going with this.

Sure
enough, obviously, we know the outcome of the election. As we got into it,
the Throne Speech came down. At the same time it was noted in the Throne
Speech and I said: Good, they're following through. Bill 1, accountability,
transparency and openness and a better process, a fairer process, a more
inclusive process for selecting those people who are going to represent the
needs of the people in this province.

So
again I said: I'm in. I'm looking forward to debating it. I'm looking
forward to supporting it. I'm still looking to supporting it. I will say
that unequivocally right now, the concept of Bill 1. I'm looking forward to
supporting a number of things that are in the proposed bill by the Liberal
government here, but I'm particularly looking at supporting an inclusive,
comprehensive bill that has amendments that are being put forward by our
party and by the Third Party. I would hope the Members in the Liberal
government would see the merits of it and see that it takes what they are
proposing and puts it to the next level, where everybody can be happy with
what it represents and it will meet their needs. It will particularly
fulfill what they said in their red book when they ran.

Again, in their Throne Speech  I give credit, the Throne Speech was read
out by the Lieutenant Governor and it was again reiterating a commitment to
openness and transparency, and the government is committed to that. It would
be an Independent Appointments Commission requiring a merit-based process
for various appointments.

So
who could argue with merit-based? Obviously, it's a simple process that
outlines, you go to the market, you go the general public, you go to people
who have an expertise in a certain area, you bring in as many as possible
and you evaluate them based on their merits, their experience, their
education, what they worked at previously and what their beliefs are. That
would make it much more efficient for how we run things in government. It
was never about remuneration or any of these things. It was about people
putting their names forward because they wanted to do their part to better
serve the people of the province. So I said: This is great. I look forward
to it. I can't wait for it to get to the House.

We
were only here a couple days and, no doubt, Bill 1 is tabled in the House of
Assembly and I looked forward to it. I said: Great, I took it. It's one of
the more comprehensive bills. It does outline every segment of it and every
clause. I went through it. I read it. I took a full day and went through it.
I noted some things. There were a number of things there I liked. I thought
it went where it needed to go and it fulfilled what they had said. There was
a number of things there I thought were grey areas, that were left to
interpretation and worried me a little bit, and then there were some things
that I said this is about don't do as I do, do as I say. It's not going to
where the intent of what they said in the red book, what they said in their
Throne Speech and what they were touting when they were first presenting the
bill. So I had a few concerns about that.

No
doubt, us as a caucus  you may notice there was no notice about it here in
the last month. We've been discussing this over the last period of time
about what kind of amendments should be added. We all agree with the concept
of Bill 1. We see the merits of it. So what kind of amendments would be
necessary to fulfill what the Liberal Party wanted to do and what we would
support? But they had to be the ones that made sense. They had to be the
ones that filled the gaps in this particular bill.

As
the evening goes on and we get into the next number of days, they'll become
more evident and we'll have a good debate around that. You'll see the merits
and the argument as to why we feel this would enhance Bill 1 and would be
something that would be positive.

The
challenge I had when I went through it was saying we're segregating this
group over here  well, they're not important to us. We'll let the
commission identify the individual we wanted appointed and then they can
just go through the process. The other ones, the ones that have more of a
higher level of responsibility or may be responsible for change of policy or
driving our economy, we're going to hold them. We're not going to do it just
on a merit based, we're going to be able to keep them to ourselves too and
we're going to get a set of recommendations. Then we're going to decide who
we think, from our perspective, would be the best.

Then
that's when I started to worry about the transparency. You had me up to that
point, the transparency and the accountability. You lost it on that part of
it. There are a number of things here that open up the process where you get
to a point where it's transparent, it's open, there's a proper fluent flow
to it. You'll no doubt be able to acknowledge the best people for any
position here and you'd have a better opportunity to serve the people of
this province. Then, you have the clause around  no, no, Cabinet.

There is no doubt Cabinet has to sign off on any positions. I agree with
that. I think that makes sense. Cabinet are the entity that represents the
government who are elected to govern. I have no problems with that. But you
can't say we're going to have it merit based and you'll ask the commission 
and first of all, you're appointing that independent commission itself and
I've got some challenges around that, the fairness on how that process works
and keeping it non-political.

That's the thing that the government stood on. This was going to be
non-political. You can't call it non-political if the political people are
the ones making the appointment of the first people, who are then going to
make the recommendations to the rest of the politicians, who are then going
to decide whether or not publicly we tell you who we recommended and who we
gave the position to may or may not have been even the group that the
appointees put forward to us.

So
it becomes very confusing. It takes away from the intent of what is
potentially a great piece of legislation and could be an earmark for the
Liberal government as your primary bill. But to do that, you've got to be
open to make sure it's done right. As I said, it's not just about do as I
do; it's about do as I say. And at the end of the day, it has to be the fact
that the best people will be selected through the fairest process and the
most transparent and open concept.

The
best way to do that is have an open debate about the amendments we're
putting forward and then let's move it forward so we get the best people for
the best job to serve people.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the
hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's
been a good discussion this afternoon. I don't have a lot more to say about
clause 1, so this will perhaps be the last time I'll speak to clause 1
before we move on to other sections of the bill. I've outlined some of the
loopholes and the concerns we have generally with the bill. Clause 1 gives
us an opportunity in Committee to address some of that.

There is a reporting mechanism in the bill, and we'll get to that as we get
further into debate. But I'm left wondering what the reporting mechanism
actually achieves. So it's hardly going to be a secret if an appointment is
made to a senior position. We're going to know about it long before any
exemptions are reported in this House. I think we need to strengthen those
reporting mechanisms and make sure that when Cabinet makes exceptions to
this process that it's disclosed quickly, very quickly, and not just when
the House of Assembly is open.

I
think, as I said the last time I spoke, we'll hear lots about urgent and
extenuating circumstances. So we just want to make the process better.

There's another way the Cabinet can make exceptions to the independent
appointments process. The act includes a list, a schedule, of those entities
to which the process applies, but it says that 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENT: Later we'll talk about a
provision in the bill where Cabinet can amend that schedule whenever it
wants when the House isn't sitting. Cabinet can remove an entity from the
list and that entity will remain removed until the end of the next sitting.
So that's a concern. It's another huge loophole that we feel we need to try
and address.

I
also am left wondering whether these gatekeepers that will be appointed have
any real power. We've seen several ways the government can sidestep the
commission's process for appointments, but what about the matters that the
gatekeepers actually do see? How much power will they actually have?

As I
went through the bill, much like my colleague for Conception Bay East  Bell
Island did, I noted that there are some concerns in that regard as well
because a Cabinet minister or the Cabinet itself will have the unfettered
authority to appoint people at their own discretion, which is a real
challenge. If you say you're going to have an Independent Appointments
Commission, yet Cabinet and ministers can simply continue to appoint whoever
they wish, then it's just smoke and mirrors. It makes the whole process
essentially meaningless.

The
Cabinet or a minister can ignore completely and continue to do things the
way they've traditionally been done. Does that meet the higher standard that
the Liberals have set? It definitely doesn't, Mr. Chair.

We've seen already as we've gone through this bill, and now I presume
shortly we'll go through in detail clause by clause, this new commission has
no teeth. Even when it's asked to make a decision, and there will be times
when Cabinet will say there is urgent or extenuating circumstances to bypass
the process, there's some real concern about the Independent Appointments
Commission's ability to do anything.

Now
the bill also amends the Public
Service Commission Act to give them a role in this process. We'll talk
about that later. So I won't get into that now, but there's an escape clause
there as well. That is a real concern. It has to be a real concern for all
of us.

Mr.
Chair, I just want to touch on the cost issue as well. It has been said at
some point this afternoon that a commissioner won't be remunerated for their
duties under the act but they'll be reimbursed for their expenses in
accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. So I just want to highlight that
there will be other costs associated with administering this commission.
While government says there won't be, I just find that hard to believe given
the amount of work we are potentially talking about.

As I
conclude my comments on clause 1, this process will be a way of gathering
resumes from people. No doubt about it, but will the recommendations of the
commission place any sort of obligation or expectation on Cabinet? No. That
is one of the fundamental problems with Bill 1. It would be better to call
this an advisory board or a review board rather than an Independent
Appointments Commission because it isn't independent and it can't make
appointments.

It's
not an independent process for making appointments. It's a process for
sometimes submitting names and non-binding recommendations to Cabinet and
the Cabinet will retain sole authority for making appointments at its own
discretion. So nothing is changing, Mr. Chair.

There's a section of the bill that makes it clear the limitations of this
process. The commission is an independent, non-partisan body whose mandate
is to provide non-binding recommendations.

As I
conclude my comments here on clause 1, the question that needs to be asked:
Does this meet the test of the promise in the 2015 red book? Does this bill
take the politics out of government appointments by making sure the most
qualified person gets the job? Absolutely not, Mr. Chair, it makes sure of
nothing. It takes the politics out of nothing. It changes nothing.

That's where it fails because it's simply not good enough for this new
administration to say they're going to change things and then change
nothing. They raised expectations in their red book, and with this bill they
raised expectations even further and said things would be different. By
being no different, this initiative fails. The bill is flawed. The
Independent Appointments Commission is just such a flawed concept based on
what's outlined here in this bill.

I
look forward to bringing forward amendments that will hopefully make it a
bit better. I still believe the whole thing should be referred to a
committee for further work, so hopefully we could come back to the House
with a piece of legislation that actually made sense.

I
thank you for listening, Mr. Chair. It's been helpful to listen to the
clause 1 debate. I look forward to continuing to debate the bill as it
progresses through Committee.

Thank you.

CHAIR: Seeing no further
speakers, shall clause 1 carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're now debating clause 2 of Bill 1. Clause 2 defines certain terms in the
bill. While we debate clause 2, we will be introducing an amendment to
paragraph (c) of clause 2 which defines the merit-based process. Having a
process that's merit based makes really good sense.

We're going to be proposing this amendment  and I'm providing a little bit
of background so that people will have an appreciation of the amendment that
we're going to bring forward and why we're bringing it forward. We're
actually going to propose an amendment here because of a separate amendment
that we intend to bring to subclause 6(3) in a few minutes. Let me briefly
explain why.

Paragraph (c) here defines the merit-based process as, a process
established by the commission in consultation with the Public Service
Commission for the purpose of executing their respective duties under this
Act. So that's good. That sounds good, Mr. Chair.

Our
amendment will add the following words after Act, and here's what we're
thinking: and also includes any process the Public Service Commission uses
to recommend members of the commission.

Then
the amended paragraph (c) would read: merit-based process means a process
established by the commission in consultation with the Public Service
Commission for the purpose of executing their respective duties under this
Act and also includes any process the Public Service Commission uses to
recommend members of the commission.

Why
do we need this? Well, because when we get to subclause 6(3) we'll be
proposing the very first Independent Appointments Commission should also be
appointed through a merit-based process. Obviously, the Independent
Appointments Commission cannot define that process because it won't yet
exist.

The
amendment that I'm about to propose allows for two merit-based processes.
One, that the commission defines with the Public Service Commission for
future appointments, and one for the very first Independent Appointments
Commission.

Mr.
Chair, this is my first time proposing an amendment in the House so I may
need some guidance from the Table, but let's give it a whirl.

I'm
proposing an amendment to clause 2, paragraph (c) here in Committee of the
Whole. I'm moving this amendment, seconded by the Member for Conception Bay
East  Bell Island.

The
bill is amended at paragraph (c) of clause 2 by adding immediately after the
word Act the words and also includes any process the Public Service
Commission uses to recommend members of the commission.

Again, Mr. Chair, I submit this amendment, moved by me, as the Member for
Mount Pearl North, and seconded by the Member for Conception Bay East  Bell
Island.

CHAIR: The Chair will take a
brief recess to consider the Member's amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair has considered the proposed amendment. According to O'Brien and Bosc,
page 768, it states: Moreover, an amendment is out of order if it refers
to, or is not intelligible without, subsequent amendments . Based on that,
the Chair rules that the amendment is out of order.

Seeing no further speakers to clause 2, shall clause 2 carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

On
motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3.

CHAIR: According to what I have
here, the next clause that the Opposition had raised some concerns about was
clause 6, so we'll go clauses 3 to 5 inclusive.

CLERK: Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 3 to 5
inclusive carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, clauses 3 through 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East 
Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I'm
happy to stand again and speak to this bill and speak especially to clause
6. Clause 6 is an important clause because it talks about the commission and
the way in which the commission is established. There are eight sections to
the clause. Most of them I agree with. I will be speaking to one that I will
want to make a change to but before bringing forth the amendment, I'd like
to make some comments.

I
know some of my colleagues have said this before, but I think it's important
for me to say it again because it is going to be the main point of the
amendment I make. Section 6(2) says: The commission is an independent,
non-partisan body 

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:  whose mandate is to
provide non-binding recommendations respecting appointments to the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council or the minister, as appropriate, following a
merit-based process. And The commission shall consist of 5 members
appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on resolution of the House
of Assembly.

The
first thing that struck me when I read that section, when we were reading
the act was, well, this is sort of like a chicken and an egg thing. We're
talking about the commission, but where does the commission come from? That
became the question for me: Where does the commission come from? As I
started probing that, I realized a major weakness in the bill and that was
that the commission, from its outset, was a commission that was actually put
in place by a partisan process. It was put in place by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council, so by government.

When
I looked at that I said, well, this is a real problem. Because if you have a
commission that's put in place by government without even any consultation 
and there isn't any consultation. When you read section 6 and read through
it, it doesn't say there will be consultation, there'll be meetings or be
anything. It is just Lieutenant Governor in Council shall be the one who
shall put the commission in place. The Lieutenant Governor and Council shall
designate one of the members of the commission to be chairperson.

Now,
I don't mind the Lieutenant Governor in Council appointing the chairperson,
if the whole commission had been put together by a non-partisan process. But
it is not put together by a non-partisan process. This is one of the
weaknesses of the bill itself.

The
bill clearly stipulates in section 5 and section 23 that Cabinet or a
minister's power to appoint is in no way affected by anything in this bill.
That happens a number of times through the bill. In actual fact, I don't
have a problem with that either because when it comes to the ultimate
decision, an actual appointment, it really is government's responsibility to
do the final appointment. That's a fact. That is a responsibility of
government when it comes to the kinds of positions that this bill is
covering, when it comes to putting people in key positions in governmental
agencies, et cetera. It is government's responsibility. There's no doubt
about that.

So
that's why in sections 5 and 23 it actually says  I'll get section 5 and
read it because I think it's important. Section 5 starts off talking about
the appointments. It says: Notwithstanding another provision of this Act,
the requirement to consider a recommendation under section 4  that's
recommendations that come from the commission  shall in no way affect,
alter or fetter the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or the
minister to exercise an authority to appoint a person under the applicable
Act or another authority.

That's fine. I have no problem with it because it is government's
responsibility. All the more reason for making sure that the way in which
the commission is put in place is completely non-partisan. All the more
reason for making sure the body that makes recommendations to council, to
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, is not a partial body, it's not a body
which had been hand-picked by one group, in this case the government.

If I
want to have a feeling of security that the recommendations that are going
to be made to government are recommendations that are non-partisan and
recommendations that are free of bias, then I'm going to want a commission
that doesn't have a sense of obligation to the governing body who appointed
it. I think that is really basic.

Making the appointment system of the commission non-partisan becomes
extremely important in this whole process. Having the commission itself
appointed by government is enough to make me say, I don't know if I can vote
for this act. I haven't got a decision made yet. I want to go through the
process. I want to go through the amendments. I want to see if government is
going to listen.

The
whole process, because of that, is flawed right from the beginning because
it isn't the commission, number one, making appointments. That's number one,
but I understand why the government ultimately has to be able to say no, but
I don't understand government saying the commission should be set up the way
that it's being set up.

It's
for that reason that I make the following amendment, Mr. Chair. I would like
to see subclause 6(3) of the bill amended by adding immediately after the
word members the words selected by an all-party committee of the House of
Assembly and.

That
means we would end up with section 6(3) reading: The commission shall
consist of five members selected by an all-party committee of the House of
Assembly and appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on resolution
of the House of Assembly. I have copies of this amendment for the Table.

CHAIR: We will take another
brief recess to consider the amendment.

May 16,
2016HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGSVol. XLVIII No. 28A

The
House resumed at 7 p.m.

CHAIR (Lane): Order, please!

The
Chair has considered the proposed amendment and according to O'Brien and Bosc,
page 768, it states,  an amendment is out of order if it refers to, or is not
intelligible without, subsequent amendments . Based on that, the Chair rules
that the amendment is out of order.

Seeing
no further speakers to clause 2, shall clause 2 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK (Ms. Barnes): Clause 3.

CHAIR: According to what I have
here, the next clause that the Opposition had raised some concerns with was
clause 6, so we'll go to clauses 3 to 5 inclusive.

CLERK: Clauses 3 to 5 inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 3 to 5
inclusive carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, clauses 3 through 5 carried.

CLERK: Clause 6.

CHAIR: Shall clause 6 carry?

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East  Quidi
Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I'm
happy to stand again and speak to this bill, and speak especially to clause 6.
Clause 6 is an important clause because it talks about the commission and the
way in which the commission is established. There are eight sections to the
clause, and most of them I agree with. I will be speaking to one that I will
want to make a change to, but before bringing forth the amendment I'd like to
make some comments.

I know
some of my colleagues have said this before, but I think it's important for me
to say it again, because it's going to be the main point of the amendment I
make. Section 6(2) says: The commission is an independent, non-partisan body 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL:  whose mandate is to provide
non-binding recommendations respecting appointments to the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council or the minister, as appropriate, following a merit-based process.

(3) The
commission shall consist of 5 members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council on resolution of the House of Assembly.

The
first thing that struck me when I read that section when we were reading the act
was, well, this is sort of like a chicken and an egg thing. We're talking about
the commission, but where does the commission come from? That became the
question for me: Where does the commission come from? As I started probing that,
I realized a major weakness in the bill. That was that the commission, from its
outset, was a commission that was actually put in place by a partisan process.
It was put in place by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, so by government.

So when
I looked at that I said, well, this is a real problem, because if you have a
commission that's put in place by government without even any consultation  and
there isn't any consultation. When you read section 6 and read through it, it
doesn't say there'll be consultation, there will be meetings, there'll be
anything; it's just Lieutenant Governor in Council shall be the one who shall
put the commission in place and the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall
designate one of the members of the commission to be chairperson.

Now, I
don't mind the Lieutenant Governor in Council appointing the chairperson if the
whole commission had been put together by a non-partisan process. But it is not
put together by a non-partisan process. This is one of the weaknesses of the
bill itself.

The bill
clearly stipulates in section 5 and section 23 that Cabinet or a minister's
power to appoint is in no way affected by anything in this bill. That happens a
number of times through the bill. In actual fact, I don't have a problem with
that either, because when it comes to the ultimate decision, an actual
appointment, it really is government's responsibility to do the final
appointment. That's a fact. That is a responsibility of government when it comes
to the kinds of positions that this bill is covering, when it comes to putting
people in key positions, in governmental agencies, et cetera. It is government's
responsibility. There is no doubt about that.

That's
why in sections 5 and 23 it actually says  and I'll get section 5 and read it
because I think it's important. Section 5 starts off talking about the
appointments. It says, Notwithstanding another provision of this Act, the
requirement to consider a recommendation under section 4  that's
recommendations that come from the commission  shall in no way affect, alter
or fetter the discretion of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or the minister
to exercise an authority to appoint a person under the applicable Act or another
authority.

Now,
that's fine. I have no problem with it because it is government's
responsibility. All the more reason for making sure the way in which the
commission is put in place is completely non-partisan. All the more reason for
making sure the body that makes recommendations to council, to Lieutenant
Governor in Council, that the body that makes recommendations is not a partial
body. It's not a body which has been hand-picked by one group, in this case the
government.

If I
want to have a feeling of security that the recommendations that are going to be
made to government are recommendations that are non-partisan and recommendations
that are free of bias, then I'm going to want a commission that doesn't have a
sense of obligation to the governing body who appointed it. I think that is
really basic.

Making
the appointment system of the commission non-partisan becomes extremely
important in this whole process. Having the commission itself appointed by
government is enough to make me say, I don't know if I can vote for this act. I
haven't got a decision made yet. I want to go through the process. I want to go
through the amendments. I want to see if government is going to listen, but the
whole process because of that is flawed right from the beginning because it
isn't the commission, number one, making appointments. That's number one, but I
understand why the government ultimately has to be able to say no, but I don't
understand government saying the commission should be set up the way that it's
being set up.

It's for
that reason that I make the following amendment, Mr. Chair. I would like to see
subclause 6(3) of the bill amended by adding immediately after the word
members the words selected by an all-party committee of the House of Assembly
and. That means we would end up with section 6(3) reading: The commission shall
consist of five members selected by an all-party committee of the House of
Assembly and appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on resolution of
the House of Assembly.

I have
copies of this amendment for the Table.

CHAIR: We'll take another brief
recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair has considered the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for the District
of St. John's East  Quidi Vidi and rules that the amendment is in order.

Now
speaking to the amendment, the Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the
District of St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I'm
really appreciative of the ruling because I think what the amendment does is
makes the action that is being described here under section 6 something that
looks like was the intent of the government. The government said it wanted this
process to show that it was open and transparent, and that the appointments
would not be political and that the process would be non-partisan. I may be
putting some of my words in there.

But the
meaning we've heard from government, certainly when they had the whole notion of
an independent committee in their platform  again, I said this earlier today,
but I'll repeat it  that the whole thing they wanted was the creation of a
commission to take politics out of government appointments. And I think what we
are doing with this amendment is helping government to make sure that process is
in place, that it will take the politics out of government.

Because
if an all-party committee has to sit, work together and come up with five people
whom they all can agree upon, then I think that we have a real possibility of a
non-partisan group of people working together, coming up with a group of people
who are accountable to the whole House of Assembly and, therefore, to the people
of the province.

It still
is in government's hands to accept or reject those nominations; it always is.
But I think that we can be more certain that what would come before government
would be something that they could accept because government would have been
part of the all-party discussion.

What we
have going on right now, for example, in our All-Party Committee on the Northern
Shrimp I think is a real good example of that. We've come together on a number
of occasions now because we have to make a presentation to the ministerial
advisory committee, the federal committee. As an all-party committee we sit and
we put all of our thoughts out on the table. We look at them from different
angles. We all have the same facts to deal with. We all have the same
information. We really do have very, very good discussions as we're trying to
come to an agreement on what the final presentation to the ministerial advisory
committee will be.

It's an
excellent example of what all-party committees can do, that we're all there with
a common purpose. That's what we did; we came to a common agreement of what the
ultimate goal of the committee was. Then we had to fine-tune, okay, there are
some details around this, how do we get at it. We're still working. We still
have a couple of more days to make our final decisions, but it's a real process
that I think all of us who are taking part in are very, very pleased with.

That's
what would happen with an all-party committee putting a commission together like
this. We would all have a common goal. We would all want a group of people who
would have, I think, the experience, the expertise, the knowledge of the
province that would help them in their process of being involved in the choosing
of people they would recommend for the different positions that government is
putting them in place for.

I think
it would give the people of the province a real sense of honesty on the part of
government, that when they would see a commission that was put together, not
because a phone call was made the night before by government, say, to me as a
House Leader we're appointing so and so tomorrow, which is what happens now,
that's what happens  that's not consultation, but an all-party committee that
would sit and merely put their efforts into coming up with the best possible
people that they could think of together as a group.

I
certainly would think that none of us would be surprised by what we could come
up with. As all-party committees we all ourselves have a variety of experiences
and a variety of networks that we're part of and a variety of knowledge just as
people who sit in this House. Put us around a table and I think maybe we might
surprise ourselves by the names that would come out if we did this, if we were
to make this part of the legislation.

I'd
really implore the government side of the House to really look at what this does
for them. It shows how committed they are to a non-partisan process, how
committed they are to taking the politics out of the appointments of people in
key positions. This would show they really mean it.

It still
wouldn't take power out of government's hands to make a final appointment.
Government would be the ones making the appointment of the five. It would still
be in their hands. We wouldn't be changing anything in the legislation that says
government doesn't have that ultimate responsibility, because it does have that
ultimate responsibility. But I think it would really show the openness of
government.

We have
had some commissions that have been set up in the province for different
reasons, but commissions set up with people sitting on the commission who had a
variety of political positions. One of the ones that come to my mind was the one
that was set up to look at Newfoundland and Labrador's place in Confederation. I
can't remember everybody who was on it; I remember Elizabeth Davis was on it.
There were three of them and I should be able to remember the others, but I
can't. They definitely weren't three people who had the same political
positions. They had a variety of experiences; there were just the three of them.

I think
they showed how government can put in place a committee or a commission or a
panel that is above political persuasion when it comes to government putting the
group together. I think an all-party committee putting this commission together
would definitely be that. An all-party committee would definitely be wanting to
have the best people on  I know I would. If I were involved in an all-party
committee that was putting this commission together, I really would want the
best people we can come up with to make sure that then, in doing the search,
with the help of the Public Service Commission, we would have people who would
have broad experience in knowing what it is you want in the positions that
government is filling. So we all would want the same thing.

The
thing is if we set up an all-party committee  we don't often look at our
Standing Orders but our Standing Orders have clear guidelines for committees,
whether they're standing committees or select committees. My amendment doesn't
say what kind of an all-party committee it is. Actually, under our Standing
Orders it probably would be a select committee. It wouldn't be a standing
committee because they're very well defined, but the select committee is a
committee that can be set up at various times and have time limits to it as this
does. It wouldn't be a standing committee of the House; it would be a select
committee.

The
rules for the select committee are very, very straightforward. It even talks
about what constitutes a quorum. It talks about what expenses get paid, which
this legislation does too. What's in the standing committee says exactly the
same thing.

The
thing about a standing committee, or a select committee  standing committees
would be the same  but standing or select committees can call witnesses. For
example, the committee when it's put in place, the all-party committee that's
going to make recommendations re the commission, the committee could reach out
to people and say we are welcoming suggestions of people that we can then look
at to be on the commission. That would be a further step in openness,
consultation and democracy in the whole process.

For me,
we are very serious about this amendment. We mean it very seriously. We honestly
believe it is the thing to do. There's only one other clause that we're going to
bring an amendment forward on and they're both amendments that we very strongly
feel belong in the act.

So I
really encourage the Members of the government side of the House, I think we do
have the support of the Official Opposition, but I really encourage the
government side of the House to understand how it benefits them, even in their
image with the people, how it benefits them to agree with the amendment I've
brought forth.

Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Service NL.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just
going to spend a few minutes to speak about the amendment that was just made by
the Third Party.

Mr.
Chair, this bill was brought forth to try to put some independence and bring the
best people forward possible. I'm not going to get into any political debate
here about what happened in the past. I'm just going to talk about the bill
itself.

I've
been in this Legislature for many years, Mr. Chair. I've seen a lot of people
come and go. I've seen a lot of people appointed over the years. In my opinion
there is no better way to have an open and accountable procedure than to have it
here in the Legislature.

Mr.
Chair, part of this bill, and this is the part that I guess people just don't
want to understand or don't feel it's the right way to do it, is when we bring
forward the names for an independent committee, they've got to be voted in this
House of Assembly. So the names that are going to be brought forward for this
committee are going to be laid on the table in front of you. Every person in
this House has an opportunity to say aye or nay to that person if they feel
they're not qualified or are going to show some bias.

Every
person in this House is going to be able to stand in the House, look at that
person, Mr. Chair, question in this House about if this person is qualified or
if this person should be on the committee. That's what we're elected for. This
is not, as the Third Party is suggesting, that we're just going to go off and
appoint and no one know who is going to be on this committee. That is just not
true.

What's
going to happen, we're going to appoint a committee. The committee's going to be
debated in this Legislature. The people who elected all of us in this House of
Assembly will have an opportunity, have a fair opportunity, Mr. Chair, to stand
on their feet, and if they don't feel there is someone qualified or if someone
is too political, or they just feel that someone shouldn't be on it, they have
the opportunity to do it.

Now, Mr.
Chair, all-party committee. Sure, we had an all-party committee on the
fisheries. I was part of one back years ago. How many people really feel that
once an all-party committee starts you're going to have dissenting views on a
regular basis? Because this one, you don't like this one or you don't like that
one.

What the
Third Party said, government's going to have the final say anyway. If she really
believes that rationale that government's going to have the final say, I'll ask
one question. If government's going to have the final say isn't it better to
walk in with the five names, lay them on the table and say here are the five
names, now let's debate those people so everybody in this whole House can have
an opportunity to debate the names?

Before
those names are even presented they're almost saying no, they're going to be so
political; no, they shouldn't be there, they'll have a partisan view. That's
just absolutely wrong. If we take it and pass it off to an all-party committee
we're abdicating our responsibilities. If we're going to go into Bill 1, before
the five names are even put forward, we're saying no, they're going to be too
political.

Mr.
Chair, this is why this Legislature is here. Any Opposition  the same thing on
the government side, Mr. Chair. If we feel we have a problem with anything we
could stand up on our own two feet, we could look those people in the eyeballs
and say, listen, we don't feel you're qualified to be on this committee. We
don't feel you're going to observe your responsibilities properly and we don't
feel you're going to carry out your duties. That's what we're going to tell
them. That's exactly what we'll tell them.

I know
the Members opposite brought up something about once the committee selects
people, how it's done. Look, that's all fair game. I understand all of that.
There may be some changes to it; there may not be some changes to it. I
understand that process, but to stand in this Legislature as parliamentarians
and say we should not look at and vote for those people, and if we need to at
the time, to look at their qualifications and say aye or nay, stand up in
Division and vote for it so everybody can stand up and say, yes, I agree with
this one; I agree or I don't. Mr. Chair, we are abdicating our responsibilities.
We are not standing up as parliamentarians.

I know
the Third Party, and I'll say it again, she said it many times, Mr. Chair,
government will have the final say. We're going to have an all-party committee 

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MR. JOYCE: I agree with you. You said
it. So why not bring the names forward in the House of Assembly so all of us
could debate the names? Why can't we do that, Mr. Chair? Why can't we do that?
What's wrong with taking the five names coming up and laying them there? We're
going to have the final say anyway, but we're giving everybody an opportunity to
debate the names and look at their resumes and say, these people, here we are.
Then with an all-party committee we have to come forward with the results of an
all-party committee. We have to come forward.

Mr.
Chair, I'll ask you a question. I'll ask anybody in this House a question. What
happened at some of the meetings we had in Marystown with the all-party
committee on FPI? No one knows. All you know is what we came through with the
recommendations. So what's going to happen with the all-party committee? You
wanted to be so open. The all-party committee is going to get together, decide
on some names and say, okay, here are the names coming forward. Okay. Now, what
are we going to do then?

What
better way than have an open, accountable procedure that lays the names on the
table and say let's everybody debate it, anybody who wants to debate it 
nothing hidden.

Madam
Chair, we did this before with people in the gallery. The former government
wanted a committee. I'm not here to play politics with it. I'm not going to
bring it up. I'm definitely not. But if you agree with it or don't agree with
it, it's the way to go. You can look the person in the eyeballs and say you are
not qualified and here is the reason why I don't think you're qualified, or
you're too political and here's the reasons why. But before even those five
names are selected, here we are told that they are going to be too political and
we shouldn't have them here.

Mr.
Speaker, put names forward to go on the committee, if you feel that strong about
it. I look at some of the other all-party committees that were in this House 

AN HON. MEMBER: Madam Chair.

MR. JOYCE: Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: Madam Chair.

MR. JOYCE: Madam Chair, yes.

I look
at some of the all-party committees, what we get in that, we get the end result.
So we don't get this open in the House of Assembly where everybody in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador can see the debate. Everybody in the
Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will see the names put on the table.
Everybody can see who said what. That's open. That's accountable. That's what
you're asking for. This is what we're giving as a government.

So I say
to the Third Party, I know your amendment was approved by the Table, but I can
tell you I want it to be open. I want it to be accountable. Madam Chair, I can
tell you one thing, when I want something open and accountable, I want to be
able to stand on my two feet, whoever is looking  and I know the Members
opposite feel the same way because you've done it many times. Stand on your two
feet in here and speak about who's on the committee and say aye or nay who is on
the committee so that everybody in the province will say, okay, you disagree,
you agree, you agree and we can play it right out for all the people of the
province to see.

An
all-party committee, we'll see what came up in the recommendations. If you don't
know who said what, when they said it, this is the place  this is the people's
forum. This is the people's forum of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is why
we're elected.

If, for
some reason, we were taking the names and saying, okay, we're not going to tell
you who is on the committee, we're going to hide that from everybody, who is on
the committee, who is going to make the selection, we're not to even release the
names of who is on the committee, I can see a big uproar. I honestly could.

How can
you argue with taking the names and laying them in the House of Assembly and say
here's the names  this is before the committee even starts, here's the names,
do you agree or disagree with these names? Without even seeing the names,
everybody disagrees. Everybody disagrees with the names.

I hear
the Third Party over there heckling. But that's the difference, Madam Chair, I
listen. I listen very intently. The minute I say something that I disagree with,
you're heckling. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. That
doesn't mean I'm wrong. It's just not fair. I'm giving what I feel. If I'm going
to say something  and here she is going again. I'm sorry, I'm sure everything
you got to say has to be perfect, because anyone who disagrees, they're wrong.
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. This is the same Member who promised not to heckle, yet
now everything she does and says is right.

Anyway,
I want to stand on my own two feet, I want to stand so people can look at me and
say here's how I voted for the independent committee, the five people. I'm
willing to do it and I'm sure all Members opposite are willing to do it also.

CHAIR (Dempster): Order, please!

I remind
the hon. Member his time is expired.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape
St. Francis.

MR. K. PARSONS: Madam Chair, again, to get up
after the hon. Member  and he made some good points that time, but I think what
we're doing here is basically a difference of opinion. We're all entitled to our
opinion. That's something about this great country that we live in. If you got
an opinion, you can get up and express it, just like that hon. Member did that
time.

I see it
a little different than what he sees it. He thinks that the government should
come in with five names, lay them on the table, and say, okay, these are the
five names that we selected and these are the people we want on the commission
now. Being the ruling party, no matter what we do on this side, we have
absolutely no say in who those commissioners are or who those people are on the
commission. So your party will come in and you'll say, okay, these are the five
people that are on this commission. We'll have absolutely no say in it; the NDP
will have no say in it at all.

All an
all-party committee is going to do  I may have somebody that would be great on
the commission that you didn't think of. Again, I mentioned it earlier today,
every committee that I ever served on, I always liked to see youth on it because
they bring a different perspective than what other people have. Madam Chair,
that's all the all-party committee will do.

At the
end of the day, you'll decide who the commissioners are. The Opposition and the
Third Party, we'll have our say, but we're nowhere in line to who will be on
this commission, because you're the people, you've got the majority vote in the
House of Assembly, and you'll carry it. But what's wrong with hearing our
opinion before you put it on the table?

All
they're asking in this amendment is to set up a committee  and we'll give you
names, and the Third Party will give you names, and maybe you'll look at it and
say, wow, there's a person that should be on that committee. That would be a
great person for that committee because it will bring a different perspective.
But no, you're saying, no, no, no, no, we're going to come down with five names,
we're going to lay them on the table, and we're going to let you debate and
we'll say, b'y, I don't like that fellow, don't like this fellow. We are
bringing people's names out that are volunteers basically, because they're not
really getting paid to do anything. These people are going to be people that are
going to be scrutinized by us in here in the House of Assembly.

Rather
than have a committee, a committee that the Third Party and the Opposition and
government met, looked at the five said, okay, these are the candidates we agree
with to go forth. At the end of the day, even at Committee stage government has
the authority to overrule what the other people want, but at least you'll get a
say. That's what the people of the province want.

They
want people to be able to look at this and say it's non-political. There's no
way it's non-political if Cabinet says, okay, we've selected five people  how
is that taking politics out, I don't know  and we're going to put the five
people here. We know how government works; everybody knows how government works.
At the end of the day, every Member over there will stand in their place and
support their government.

I have
no doubt in my mind that will happen, unless it's circumstances that one person
really feels that they have to do it and they'll sit down, and I don't think
that will happen on something like this because it will be a recommendation from
Cabinet and it will be done.

Why not
go the route where other parties will have an opportunity to put names forward
too and we decide on the five best people? At the end of the day, it's all about
the best legislation, and the best legislation will be what everybody can have a
part in it. That's all this is about, is making sure the proper people get
appointed. Like I said, there may be a person that we recommend or there may be
a person the Third Party recommends that you'll agree to, and that's a good
thing. That will be a real good thing; it will be good for democracy. It will be
good for the House of Assembly; it will be good for our province.

That's
all I have to say.

Thank
you very much, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister ofMunicipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you.

Madam
Chair, I'm just going to stand for one second. I understand what the Member is
saying. This is a valid point. It's a great discussion. Some of the things you
brought forward are any position, once those five people are appointed  I just
want to make this clear  we should at least look and see who these five people
are. Once we find out who these five people are then if we disagree, then we can
speak in the House of Assembly.

The
second part of it that was brought up very briefly is that once an appointment
needs to be made, it's going to be advertised. The appointment for any position
that's under this tier one will be advertised, so it's not that I, as a Member
of the Legislature, not that anybody in this House got to go out and say let's
go find people. It will be advertised.

Once
it's advertised, then it goes through a screening process. Once the screening
process takes place  there is process through the Public Service Commission and
then down through the committee that will then look at the applicants, screen
the applicants, and then however they decide that we're going to interview five,
10, 15, however they decide, that is how it's going to be done.

So this
idea that, okay, we have an all-party committee set up here, we'll set up an
all-party committee  oh jeepers, I might know someone who'll be good for this
position. That's not the way it's working. Once the five people are set up,
Madam Chair, and there's a position comes up, whatever the position may be  I
know in tier one there's a variety of numbers under tier one, Madam Chair. I'm
not sure of the exact number.

Every
position that is going to go to this commission will be advertised. So people
are getting the impression that because we're going to set up an all-party
committee here in this Legislature, and because the Third Party may know a few
names, or someone in the Opposition may have a few names, or one or two friends
over here in the government is going to have a few names, and collectively we
could come up with six or seven names, that's not even on. It's going to be
publicly advertised. Anybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador who
wants to find out what positions are available, what matches their
qualifications, they will know and they will have the opportunity to apply.

I have
no problem with having an open debate. I have no problem having the discussion
about this because it is a serious issue and we are trying to make it much
better. This will be much, much, much better than it ever was before, Madam
Chair. There may be times  it's like any bill we bring in this Legislature,
every day that we're in this Legislature, every minister in this House, and the
former government also, we have to go and check our legislation to come in and
bring legislation forth because things get outdated. That's part of it. Things
may change. They may find a better way. That's part of the process of this
government. This may happen with this bill, but this is where we're starting
from.

So for
anybody to get the impression that because you're on an all-party committee,
that we may be able to get some different names from different parties, that
just shows me, Madam Chair, the partisanship of it all. Well, we have a few
friends over here with the Third Party, so we can bring them forth and we got a
few friends too  this is not being political in any group; this is just the way
politics works. I understand, but what we're offering up, instead of having this
little bit of turf, we know three or four people, we know three or four, we're
offering it up to everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to say
if you feel you're qualified, put in your application. We'll accept it.

I have
to ensure that it's properly put forth that because it's an all-party committee
that we can bring names forth  it makes no difference, Madam Chair, who's on
that committee. The committee is there to select the best candidate. The
committee's job is not to go out and find people and people they may know; the
committee is to say, here are the people that are coming forth with us. There is
a screening process in place to ensure that we have a certain number of
candidates. Once we have a certain number of candidates who are qualified, then
the process for that committee is to find the best candidate in that group. That
is the process.

If
people got the idea with the all-party committee, that's fine. I can understand
that. I can definitely relate to that, why some people want to bring that
forward. I've got no problem with that. But we have to make sure that when we're
speaking in this House that we speak and ensure that the policy and the
procedures, once the committee is set, how it works after. Because I don't want
to leave anybody with the impression that the committee is going to go out and
try to find names, and if we do set up an all-party committee, that they're
going to go out and find some people.

It's
going to be publicly advertised, unlike before. It's going to be a public
process, whereby people have to go through an interview  which wasn't done
before  and then they're going to come down to the independent committee who is
going to end up making the selection and making the recommendations to Cabinet.
That wasn't done before.

This
process is much better than what it was before. It's much more open and
accountable. Like I said earlier, Madam Chair, and some people may like it, some
people may not like it, but when I have something to say in this Legislature, I
have no problem standing on my own two feet and saying, here's why I think it's
right, here's why I think it's wrong, here are the good points, here are the bad
points. There's no better than having 40 people in this Legislature to stand and
say, here's the reason why, black and white, stand on your own two feet as a
Member, as we're all elected to do, and give the reasons why.

There's
no better open process, in my opinion, instead of taking our responsibility as
Members and passing them off to a committee and saying, okay, we don't feel now,
the 40 of you, that you guys can make the right decision. It was already said by
both parties  both parties  government's going to have the final say. If
you're going to have the final say, why have it out into a room with five people
on the committee to decide who's going to come forth? I'd rather for all of us
to stand up here in this Legislature, every Member in this Legislature standing
up and saying I want to be able to say aye or nay, I want to say why this person
is qualified, why this person is not for the appointment of this independent
committee. There's no better process, there's no better openness, there's no
better accountability than to stand on your own two feet and defend your words
and defending your actions.

Madam
Chair, I think that's what democracy is all about. Once that independent
committee is done, everybody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador can
start saying what positions are open to make this province a better place. I am
sure that every Member in this Legislature, and I'm sure every person in
government  well, I shouldn't say that. Every person on this side, for sure,
wants to ensure we get the best possible person in the position. That's why it's
going to be open. That's why everybody in the province is going to know how to
apply. Every person in this province who feels they're qualified for a position
will have the opportunity to apply. That is why we'll be asking the best talent
in Newfoundland and Labrador to come forward to help us.

Madam
Chair, I'm proud to stand with this government, and I'm sure all Members in this
House  I know we all stood on many occasions in this House  will stand in this
House and say aye or nay about the independent committee, who they are and
explain the virtues of why these people are selected in such a way. Instead of
standing up before we even know who the people are, stand up and say no, we
don't even agree with you because you might be too impartial or you may be a bit
biased. Without even knowing the names, without it being brought forth, right
away politics has stepped in.

Once you
get the names, then if you want to stand up  the co-leader of the Third Party
has started again. Once again, if you don't agree with the Member, all of a
sudden you're wrong. Your ideas are no good. I can't stand and express my views
because they may be a bit different.

I
respect everybody's view. We may have a difference of opinion. We do. I have no
problem with that, but please respect my view because I'm elected. Every person
in this House has an opportunity. So if you (inaudible) with the co-leader of
the Third Party, if you disagree with her views, all of a sudden she starts
heckling.

I
listened to you very intently. I never said one word when the former Member for
Cape St. Francis  because this is an important issue. Sure we have our
tos-and-fros. We all have that back and forth. I understand that, but when
there's an issue like this here and we're expressing different points of view 
I can tell you one thing, Madam Chair, I take no better pride than standing in
this House of Assembly and saying where I stand, why I stand and the reasons why
I stand on different issues in this province.

I can
guarantee you one thing, I'm willing to stand for anybody who comes in this
Legislature that we're going to put forth and say why I want that person, why
that person should be there, show the reasons why. I'm pretty confident, when
you look people in the eyeball, face to face and try to say that person is not
qualified, without even knowing the people who are going to be appointed,
politics has already stepped into it.

Let's
put the people in front of us, let's find out and let everybody in this House of
Assembly have an opportunity, Madam Chair, to do our right and to have a vote
for whatever we want to do (inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind
the hon. Member his time for speaking has expired.

The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.

I'm very
happy to stand and speak to this amendment, particularly to get us back on track
in terms of really what the amendment is and what it is we're talking about here
this evening. The amendment is to Bill 1, An Act to Establish an Independent
Appointments Commission and to Require a Merit-Based Process for Various
Appointments.

This is
a very important act, Madam Chair. It's an important act and one we were all
looking forward to. So it's great to be able now to stand and get this debate
back on track and to talk about the substantive nature of the amendment that we
are looking at right now and debating right now.

The
amendment we are looking at is in section 6(3). It says, The commission shall
consist of 5 members . And the amendment is: selected by an all-party
committee of the House of Assembly and appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in
Council on resolution of the House of Assembly.

Madam
Chair, basically what we're talking about is enriching the process. We can't
stand in this House of Assembly and debate private citizens about whether or not
they are qualified for a position on the commission, or whether they're
qualified for an appointment in one of our many agencies, boards or commissions.
We can't do that. We can't do that in this House of Assembly to private members.
That's absolutely ridiculous, and that's not what this amendment is all about.

I'm not
sure where the Member for Humber  Bay of Islands is really thinking. I can't
imagine what it was he was thinking about.

Basically, what this amendment is recommending is that the five-person
commission  the Independent Appointments Commission is the foundation of this
whole bill. It is actually the foundational piece of this whole bill. It is
they, those five members, who will assure not only to government, not only to
the Official Opposition or our Third Party, and not only to the people of the
province, but it also is a safeguard for the people who are appointed.

We will
know by a very transparent and open process like that, that the people who are
appointed are appointed because they bring a certain expertise and experience to
the table, which is what we all want. We all want that. I know that's what
government wants. I know that's what we all want on this side of the table. I
know that's what the people of the province want. We're talking about not taking
the politics out of it, because everything is political. All our boards and
agencies, they're dealing with political issues. We're talking about taking the
partisanship out of it. That's really important.

Again,
the five-person committee is the foundational piece. It's about whether or not
this bill works or not. It's about whether or not appointments to agencies,
boards or commissions will be non-partisan. Well, we've just had sort of a
similar example, not quite the same, but sort of similar in the Electoral
Boundaries Review Committee.

The
Electoral Boundaries Review Committee was a really important committee. It was
about redrawing the boundaries for our electoral process. That's really
important. Again, that's the foundational piece of our democracy, making sure we
have electoral districts that reflect the needs of the province, making sure
they are drawn properly, that they are divided, because it was a big job they
had to do. Those people were appointed with very clear input from all three
parties here in this House.

That's
what we're talking about. So there's precedence for it. Again, it's something
that's a little bit different. They were a one-time committee. They had very
important work to do. As will, this Independent Appointments Commission has
really important work to do, because they are going to be appointing, for
instance, a Child and Youth Advocate. That is so crucial, and some of the roles
that will be appointed are people who will have to advocate and push against
government policy, who will have to advocate on behalf of their constituents and
push against government legislation or push for legislation.

When you
look at the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate it's so crucial, and she does
at times have to come out and criticize what government does. It's so
imperative, not only for those of us in the House to see it as non-partisan, but
it's also imperative that those who are appointed by this commission in our
agencies, in our boards, in our commissions, they also need this safeguard.
Because when they make difficult decisions, whether it to be fully agreeing with
government, they need to know the public has confidence in the fact they were
appointed, not on a partisanship basis, but they were appointed because of their
merits, because of their expertise, because of their experience.

It's a
safeguard for people like the Child and Youth Advocate, for the Citizens'
Representative. A Citizens' Representative is so important, as someone lobbying
on behalf of citizens. They need that assurance as well.

What
we're asking is for all of us to have input in the appointment of the commission
so that as the foundational piece of this bill, they're not under scrutiny in
terms of their partisanship affiliation. It actually frees them to do their
work. Then when they make decisions that may not be favourable to us or may not
be favourable to government, they know the very process by which they have been
appointed, in fact, safeguards them. Then because their role is so foundational,
then that safeguards the work they do.

We know
it's just the right, reasonable thing to do. It's about enriching the process.
It's not about taking power from government, because ultimately government does
make that decision. That is their role and that is their responsibility. It's
not about taking any power away from government at all. It's not about
minimizing the role of government. As a matter of fact, it's about enriching the
process. It doesn't cost us anything. It's really about making it better. I'm
not sure why government wouldn't welcome an amendment such as this. I'm not sure
why they wouldn't welcome this type of enrichment to the process.

Again, I
cannot stress enough, it's a safeguard for government. It's a safeguard for the
Independent Appointments Commission. It's a safeguard for those who are
appointed into some of our really, really important agencies, boards and
commissions. They are people who have to make very, very difficult decisions,
decisions that really affect how things are done in our province.

The
Environmental Protection Act, the
Energy Corporation Act, some of the
appointments are so crucial. That commission will appoint the Board of Regents
for Memorial University, the CEO for Hydro, the head of Legal Aid; very
important, extremely important positions.

I bet
you if there was an Independent Appointments Commission right now and it was
time to turn it over and appoint anew, I'm sure they would make a recommendation
such as this. It safeguards everyone. It makes it more open and transparent. It
takes nothing from government. As a matter of fact, it's about making things
better.

The
other thing is we have the tools at our disposal, to use a select committee. We
don't even have to create anything new in order to be able to do this. Again,
those are our fantastic democratic tools that enable us to do the work we have
to do as legislators the best that we possibly can.

I
believe we can do this. I would think if government would stop and just take a
look, that, in fact, it's not chipping away at their power. It's not questioning
anybody's integrity or morals. It's about safeguards. I would think that anybody
in this House could get that.

Madam
Chair, at this point I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak.
I will get back up and speak again.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind
the hon. Member her time has expired.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just
wanted to rise briefly to speak in support of the amendment that's been proposed
by the Third Party. We had an amendment drafted, and maybe we'll get an
opportunity to introduce ours as well. It's slightly different. The broad intent
is much the same.

The
concept is about having an all-party Select Committee of the House of Assembly
involved in selecting who's going to be on the Independent Appointments
Commission. I think that's a good move. It is really fundamental  as, I'm not
sure, one of the Members of the NDP pointed out this evening  because it's
about establishing the commission in the first place.

Subclause 6(3) currently reads, The commission shall consist of 5
members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council on resolution of the
House of Assembly.

For those who may be watching who aren't as familiar with
some of this stuff, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is effectively Cabinet.
So we don't believe that Cabinet should select the names that will go to the
House in a resolution. We, too, believe that a committee of this House should
select those names.

If you want to take the politics out of this and you want
to have it independent, then that seems like a logical approach. We think the
NDP amendment is a good one. We think we can build on it
even further, but the
amendment as it stands is a sensible one and we support it, Madam Chair.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers,
we'll now call the vote on the amendment of the subclause 6(3).

All
those in favour of the amendment, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment has failed.

On
motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Now we'll go back to
continuing debate on clause 6.

The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We're
now debating section 6. I want to talk about subclause 6(3) once again. As I
just said, I think the amendment that was put forward makes good sense, but I'd
actually propose going a step further. We believe that in addition to having the
commission chosen by a committee of this House, that those folks should also be
determined based on a 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask
Members for their co-operation to keep the noise level down a little bit in the
House.

Thank
you.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It is
difficult to hear.

We
believe that in addition to them being chosen by a committee of the House, it
should be done using a merit-based process. So I'm going to propose an amendment
to add the following words after the word Assembly. I will read the formal
amendment, but just to give you an idea of what we're trying to do here, after
the word Assembly we'd like to add and the names on that resolution shall be
provided by an all-party select committee of the House of Assembly which shall
receive recommendations from the Public Service Commission that are determined
on a merit-based process.

The
amended subclause 6(3) would read: The commission shall consist of 5 members
appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on resolution of the House of
Assembly and the names on that resolution shall be provided by an all-party
Select Committee of the House of Assembly which shall receive recommendations
from the Public Service Commission that are determined on a merit-based process.

So
similar to the previous amendment, but in this case we're saying in addition to
having them appointed by a committee of the House, let's ensure it's a
merit-based process that's used to arrive at those recommendations.

I'll
move the following amendment, Madam Chair. Subclause 6(3) is amended by adding
immediately after the word Assembly the words and the names on that
resolution shall be provided by an all-party select committee of the House of
Assembly which shall receive recommendations from the Public Service Commission
that are determined on a merit-based process.

CHAIR: The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North has proposed an amendment, again, on subclause 6(3). So the House
will take a brief recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair has considered the amendment put forth by the Member for Mount Pearl
North, subclause 6(3), and has ruled the amendment out of order based on O'Brien
and Bosc, page 767, The committee's decisions concerning a bill must be
consistent with earlier decisions made by the committee.

The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: All right, Madam Chair, it's
interesting. I respect your ruling. I can assure hon. Members that we did do
considerable research and consulted with the appropriate parties in preparing
the amendment. So while I'm surprised by the ruling, I certainly accept the
ruling and respect the role of the chair.

The
amendment was remarkably similar to the New Democratic Party's amendment, which
was ruled in order but unfortunately voted down, which is rather unfortunate.

I'm
still speaking to clause 6, but I'm going to move to 6(4) within Bill 1. The
issue here relates to the choosing of the chair of the Independent Appointments
Commission. This clause is about who should select the chair of the Independent
Appointments Commission in the first place and designate any replacement chairs.

The
current bill says Cabinet should. Now, we believe a Select Committee of the
House should. Why is that, you may ask. Well, for two reasons. First of all, a
select committee is more independent and transparent. If you're serious about
making this an independent, transparent process then decisions can't be made
behind closed doors in the Cabinet room.

Also,
the chair of this commission is going to have considerable power. Under clause
8, it's the chair of the Commission who has the authority to appoint a panel of
3 commissioners to review potential appointees for each appointment.

Subclause 6(4) currently reads: The Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall
designate one of the members of the commission to be chairperson. The amendment
I'd now like to propose deletes the words The Lieutenant-Governor in Council 
which, again, is Cabinet. For those who may be watching this debate, when we say
Lieutenant Governor in Council we mean Cabinet  and substitute the words An
all-party select committee of the House of Assembly. Secondly, by adding after
the word chairperson the words and that select committee shall designate a
replacement chairperson in the event that the chairperson's position becomes
vacant.

I will
move the amendment in a moment, but the whole thing would then read: An
all-party Select Committee of the House of Assembly shall designate one of the
members of the commission to be chairperson and that select committee shall
designate a replacement chairperson in the event that the chairperson's position
becomes vacant. This addresses the issue of who should choose the chair and
replacement chairs, if required.

Madam
Chair, I'll move the following amendment to Bill 1. Subclause 6(4) of the bill
is amended by deleting the words The Lieutenant-Governor in Council and
substituting the words An all-party select committee of the House of Assembly
and by adding after the word chairperson the words and that select committee
shall designate a replacement chairperson in the event that the chairperson's
position becomes vacant.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North has put forth a motion to amend subclause 6(4). This House will take
a brief recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair has considered the amendment put forth by the Member for Mount Pearl
North, subclause 6(4), and has ruled the amendment out of order. O'Brien and
Bosc, page 768,  an amendment is out of order if it refers to, or is not
intelligible without, subsequent amendments .

Basically, it doesn't anticipate subclause 6(5).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Once
again, I respect your wisdom and respect the ruling of the chair. I am rather
surprised by it and disappointed by it; nonetheless, we shall move on. We have
many other amendments to consider.

The
opportunity in clause 6, by bringing forward amendments we thought we could
address a number of fundamental flaws with this piece of legislation, making
sure first and foremost that the first Independent Appointments Commission is
truly independent and is not just a committee of Liberal appointees. So it's
unfortunate that is not being fixed here this evening.

Further
to that, recognizing the important role that the chair plays, having a good
process in place for the selection of the chair, we also felt was really
critical. It's unfortunate that we're unable to effect change to those
particular items at this point in time. But we shall carry on. There are other
changes that can be considered here tonight and are needed. So I look forward to
continued debate, and I do want to talk further about clause 6.

The next
thing I'd like to speak to, now that we've addressed the issue of who chooses
the committee and who chooses the chair, and we've made an effort to try and fix
both of those flaws in the bill, I'd now like to talk about the issue of the
rules of the Independent Appointments Commission. I'd like to draw your
attention, Madam Chair, to subclause 6(7) in Bill 1.

This is
a clause about who should set the rules of procedure for the Liberal
Appointments Commission. The current bill says that the commission should. We
also believe the commission should, but we also believe a Select Committee of
the House should review those rules and have the power to amend them if they are
flawed.

Why
would that be important? Well, that's about ensuring greater accountability.
Subclause 6(7) currently reads: The commission shall adopt rules of procedure
and keep records of its proceedings. Our amendment is to delete that wording
and replace it with the following: The commission shall keep records of its
proceedings and shall propose rules of procedure to the Select Committee which
may amend the proposed rules and shall direct the commission as to the rules of
procedure which will apply to the commission.

So,
Madam Chair, hopefully I'll have an opportunity to speak to that further, but
I'd now like to move the following amendment to subclause 6(7). Subclause 6(7)
of the bill is deleted and the following is substituted: (7) The commission
shall keep records of its proceedings and shall propose rules of procedure to
the Select Committee which may amend the proposed rules and shall direct the
commission as to the rules of procedure which will apply to the commission.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North has put forth a motion to amend subclause 6(7).

The
House will take a brief recess to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Member for Mount Pearl North put forth a motion to amend subclause 6(7). The
Chair has ruled the amendment out of order based on O'Brien and Bosc, page 763,
The committee's decisions concerning a bill must be consistent with earlier
decisions made by the committee.

The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Once
again, I have no choice but to respect your ruling. I want to highlight for
people who may be watching the debate, that section 6 of this bill is really
critical for a number of reasons. It's about how this Independent Appointments
Commission gets selected to begin with. Right now they are pure, political
appointees. What we've been trying to do through proposing amendments is resolve
that issue in terms of how the chair is selected and in terms of how committee
members are selected.

I still
want to speak to 

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind
the Member his time for speaking has expired.

The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As my
colleague for Mount Pearl North was just saying, it's unfortunate that the
intent of our amendments to clause 6 to try and take politics out of
appointments by having an all-party select committee  that was the intent of
the amendments we proposed for section 6, was to do exactly that.

As
Members stated many times, and we'll say it again, having an all-party or select
committee gives a fairer or more neutral assessment or ability for the committee
to actually make appointments, make recommendations that are more in keeping
with a neutral, arm's-length body as opposed to going to Cabinet.

We've
made several amendments and we've been unsuccessful in having a select
committee, but that is the main goal of our  our whole intent has been to take
politics out of appointments. As the government opposite has prided themselves
in their red book and through the campaign trail, they want to take politics out
of appointments. Unfortunately, right now the way it stands, we don't feel that
politics will be taken out of these appointments. An all-party committee was a
great way to achieve this. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

As I was
saying, I do want to speak a little bit more to clause 6 of this bill because
it's significant for a number of reasons. While I respect the rulings that have
been made on amendments we've tried to make  and I recognize that one of the
amendments that was in order, presented by the New Democratic Party, was voted
down tonight  I do want to talk about the issues in clause 6 that are of
concern. I think this is a really substantial piece of the bill and it really
speaks to the fundamental problem we have with the legislation.

In
clause 6, it talks about how the so-called Independent Appointments Commission
is chosen in the first place. The problem we have with that is these initial
appointees, who are supposed to be independent, are going to be simply chosen by
Cabinet. Now, there will be a resolution brought here.

There
was a Member opposite tonight, I believe it was the Minister of Municipal
Affairs, who made the point that yes, we do get to debate that in the House of
Assembly  and he's correct on that point. We do get to have a debate. We can
all speak our mind on those five names and how we feel about them, and whether
they're the right names and whether we like the process. So I'll acknowledge
that he is correct in saying that.

I guess
where we differ and where we'll have to agree to disagree on all of this is that
there's no ability  we can speak at length about those names and about our
feelings on them, but at the end of the day there's no ability for us to stop
that from passing the House. That's how this process works.

Government has a clear majority, and that's something we all have to acknowledge
and respect of course. When we talk about the fact that that's really a
so-called rubber-stamping, that's what we mean. The names will be chosen by
Cabinet. It will come here to be formally ratified, but there's no real process
for us to effectively stop that from passing. That is how things work here.
Whether that's right or wrong, that is the system we work within.

The
challenge is that those appointees will be appointees of Cabinet. That will get
rubber-stamped in this House, but there will be no opportunity for input from
anybody else. I think that's a miss. I believe government wants to do the right
thing here. I don't think it would have been a significant part of the party's
platform in November if they weren't serious about it. I just feel there are
some major, major flaws with this bill that probably will  unless we can get
some of these amendments through, it will probably put us in a position where we
have to stand against  some of us, anyway, will have to stand against this
bill. Nobody is standing to say we oppose the concept of an Independent
Appointments Commission. I haven't heard anybody say yet that they oppose that
concept. But what we're talking about here in clause 6 is how these people are
going to be appointed. They are being appointed by Cabinet and we don't believe
Cabinet should select the names that will go into the resolution that will come
before this House.

Having a
committee of the House select the names makes sense. Our party believes that
should be a merit-based process as well. Maybe it shouldn't just be based on
input that comes from the Public Service Commission as we were proposing. A
committee could get input from all kinds of places to make an informed decision
on who should be on that committee. The fact that it will remain that these are
appointees of Cabinet and it's that simple, I think, is an unfortunate missed
opportunity. I can't sit quietly while clause 6 passes without making that
point, Madam Chair, and I respectfully submit.

Also in
this clause there's language around how the chairperson gets selected and we
have the same issue there. It's perhaps not as significant as our issue with the
overall committee appointments, but the fact that the chair will be appointed by
Cabinet is rather unfortunate, I think.

I think
a select committee would be more independent and more transparent. Having a
committee to make those appointments makes good sense. The chair of this
committee is going to have some significant power and, for that reason, we think
it should be a more objective, impartial, transparent process that is not
political. So that's why we're raising concerns with clause 6.

Similarly, the commission will establish its own rules. While they should
establish their rules of procedure  as I said, I think that makes sense  it
just seems that if there's a flaw, if there's an issue with those rules, if
we're going to make this non-political and make it independent, then having a
role for this House to play in reviewing those rules and addressing any concerns
that come up would ensure a greater accountability.

Those
are the points we wanted to make around clause 6. I think there is an
opportunity, by making changes to this section of the bill, to actually achieve
a little bit of independence. It won't solve all of the issues with the bill,
but how the committee is actually chosen, how the chair is chosen, how the rules
of procedure are established, that's big stuff. In terms of the overall
functioning of this Independent Appointments Commission those are major
considerations, which is why we've taken some time this evening to raise
concerns about that.

So I
hope that Members will reflect on those comments. I don't know whether there
will be any additional amendments proposed by, perhaps, government or other
Members of the House; but, to me, there's a better way forward here. There's a
way to make changes to clause 6 that would allow the committee to be more
legitimate and more independent, to allow the chairperson's appointment to be
more independent and accountable, and to give the House some visibility over the
rules of engagement for that group.

We're
trying to make a sincere effort here to make this legislation a bit better, and
that has to start with how this group is formed and constituted in the first
place. That is the reason why I wanted to express some further concern around
clause 6. I don't know if other Members of the House wish to express any
concerns or raise any questions about clause 6, but I will now take my seat and
allow them to do so if they wish.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St.
John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.

I would
like to make some more comments on clause 6 because, as I said when I stood
before and when I brought forward the amendment, I do think that it is really
basic to the whole act how the commission is put in place. When I first read the
act  and if anybody wants to see my notes, they'll see it  one of the things I
wrote on the side of 6(3): no consultation with other parties. It was the first
thing that struck me that the commission would be put in place by the Lieutenant
Governor in Council  in other words Cabinet.

Now it
says on resolution of the House of Assembly  and I think my colleague for St.
John's Centre mentioned this when she spoke, but I want to make it clear again.
We all know what happens in the House of Assembly when names are brought in to
be in positions. It's almost a protocol of the House that you have individuals
who've been named by Cabinet. It may be one or it may be a committee. And while
it's brought to the floor, it is a rubber-stamping and it's a rubber-stamping
because we are respecting the people who've been nominated.

We're
not going to stand here in this House and tear apart an individual who's been
nominated by Cabinet. We're not going to do that. It would be inappropriate to
do it. So to say that we have an open process, names will be brought and we get
to vote on it, even if we rejected the persons or one of them that was being
brought forward  which I promise you is never going to happen on the floor of
the House, but even if we did, we're not in the majority anyway and government
would have their nominees passed anyway.

That is
not what the spirit, I thought, of this bill was supposed to be. It's going
against the spirit of the bill. We all know what I'm saying is correct. We all
know that. So it's very, very disturbing. I don't understand why government
doesn't see it, unless it is that government wants to have ultimate power. They
want to have the ultimate say. They want to have the ultimate control, and the
ultimate control is naming who the commission is. That's the ultimate control.

They
have the ultimate control in the process because when all is said and done,
government still can reject a nomination that comes to them from the commission
when that commission is in place. So why aren't they happy enough to have that 
and they should have it. Government is responsible for the appointments, but why
not recognize that working together to come up with the names of people is
logical.

You have
a broader experience around the table. If you had a committee  I don't know how
large the committee would be but, say, if we had a committee of five  which I
think is sort of what we work with now, five or seven. If you had that size of a
committee, you have that many more people who are known to the committee.

I don't
know people in some areas of the province, obviously, but somebody on the
committee from the West Coast will know. I will know people from here in St.
John's. Somebody on the all-party committee from the Northern Peninsula will
know people from there. Somebody from Labrador will know people from there. So
you get a broader experience.

Now,
government could say back to me, well, they have all their MHAs and they have a
broader experience too, but we all know that we all move in different circles.
So the circle becomes that much wider if you have an all-party committee
choosing the commission.

Yes, I
know there's a process of working with the Public Service Commission and the
Independent Appointments Commission is not the one doing everything, but they're
still the ones who get recommendations to them from the Public Service
Commission and they still ultimately come up with names that go on to
government. So we want a commission that is open, that is wise, that has a broad
mixture of experience. We'll talk more about that later when we talk about the
makeup of the commission in another clause.

It just
makes ultimate sense, and it's such a sign to people that government is not
afraid of working with the other parties when it comes to putting something like
this together. This is what I don't understand. It would benefit the government.
People would look at you and say, they really do know how to consult. Not the
experience that people have had with this government over consultation. They
will say they really do know how to consult. They know what consultation really
means.

It means
working together, actually. That's what it means, but this government just seems
intent on holding onto the reins on this one. I don't understand it, because you
do have the ultimate power to make the final decision but show the openness
right from the beginning.

It
really doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't make sense to me that you don't see
what you're doing here. Maybe you do and you think it doesn't matter, but if you
think that people will see the appointment by Cabinet of the commission as being
open, transparent and non-partisan, I got news for you. People are not going to
see it that way. This is a wonderful opportunity to once again test in this
House of Assembly how all-party committees work. We're learning our way with
that and this is another opportunity.

When I
look at all of clause 6, which has to do with putting the commission in place, I
actually have no problem with the members of the commission electing from their
number one person as vice-chairperson. If the government had chosen an all-party
committee then it would have been logical for the all-party committee to choose
the chairperson, but again, government is maintaining that control. You're
maintaining the control of who even the chairperson is. You let the group, the
commission itself choose its vice-chairperson, you could let the group choose
its chairperson. Again, it's a sign of you wanting to have total control.

I'm glad
the commission gets to adopt its own rules of procedure and keep records of its
proceedings. I think it's good for them to decide how to work. Because they may
decide they want to come to consensus on their decisions, they may not want to
use Robert's Rules of Order. So for
them to decide how they'd like to operate, I think is a very, very good thing.

If you
really did want this to work, then, number one, you would do what we've been
suggesting and talking about. You could bring the motion in yourself. You could
bring in the amendment. You could show your openness by your bringing in an
amendment, because as government you could do that. You wouldn't have to prove.
You could change the legislation before we vote on it. You have the power to do
that.

I think
I am in agreement with the Official Opposition, that this Part II is called
Independent Appointments Commission, and the act is called Independent
Appointments Commission, and it isn't an Independent Appointments Commission.
It's a commission that was chosen by government and it doesn't do the
appointing. I totally agree with the Official Opposition in making that point.

I don't
even agree with the name of the act, because the name of the act is not correct.
It's not what it is. It's not what the commission is and it's not what the
process is.

I just
really believe I needed to say some of that again and bring up the other point
of the fact that it is not a consultation when names come on to the floor of
this House. We are respectful for names that are brought here to this House. We
are respectful.

Thank
you very much, Madam Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Madam Chair, I appreciate the
comments made by the Member for St. John's East  Quidi Vidi, because we're in
large part saying the same thing here. So I just want to make that point.

There's
a legitimate attempt being made here this evening to try and improve on this
legislation, and clause 6 is so important because it's about how that group gets
formed and who gets appointed to it. That's why we're making an effort to bring
about some changes to clause 6. There's still an opportunity here to do so,
Madam Chair.

Government still has the ability to make changes if it wishes, even if our
amendments are ruled out of order. The spirit and intent of what we're trying to
do here this evening is to make this more independent and to make the whole
thing more legitimate. If this is the flagship bill for government in its first
sitting in the House of Assembly, then there should be a desire to try and do
that.

That's
what's at stake here this evening. What we're saying is, let's take the politics
out of the appointment of that initial group of commissioners. Let's have
multiple parties in the Legislature involved. Let's make sure it's a merit-based
process. From the get-go then, the whole thing will have more legitimacy and
more creditability.

I think
it's possible to make changes to clause 6 that would make a real difference in
that regard. It may not be obvious to people who may be watching this at home,
but when you're amending legislation there are a lot of technicalities. Even a
minor word could mean an amendment is in order or not in order. What we're
really trying to do with the various changes we propose to clause 6 is make sure
that commission, when it's appointed, is independent. That's critical if it's
going to be called the Independent Appointments Commission.

We also
feel there should be some oversight in terms of the rules that committee
operates under. Any select committee responsible for dealing with this could
help achieve that as well. So we believe there's some real opportunity to make
changes that will make a real difference.

I also
think it should be a Select Committee of this House that should choose the chair
of the committee as well. That's why we're raising concerns about clause 6. It
is really critical, it's foundational. It's about how this committee will be
formed and how it will operate. It just makes sense to make it non-political.

The way
it stands now, if this clause passes and the bill passes without any amendments
to clause 6, then what we're going to have is a commission that's supposed to be
independent but is appointed by Cabinet. It will be handpicked by Cabinet with
no kind of merit-based process.

On top
of all that, we're still going to have a commission that can't make any
appointments; that can only make recommendations that may be adopted or may not.
We won't even know. If we do find out that process hasn't been followed, it
could be months later before we become aware of that. So that's why we're
raising concerns around clause 6.

I just
want to assure hon. Members, and assure anybody who may be following this
debate, that the Opposition parties this evening and earlier today are making a
concerted effort to try and make this bill better so that we don't simply end up
with a flawed piece of legislation that doesn't achieve what government set out
to achieve.

Now,
I'll stand by my belief, Madam Chair, that it would be better to start again.
Because as people are seeing from the process so far, there are significant
amendments required to try and make this workable and address some of the
concerns that have been brought to us and that we've observed ourselves as we've
gone through the legislation.

But if
we're going to just work on Bill 1 and it's going to carry through this process,
as seems to be the intention here, then we've got to try and address as many of
those concerns as we possibly can, which we'll continue to do here this evening.

On
clause 6, it's about how the commission gets appointed. We believe that
shouldn't be simply done behind closed doors at the Cabinet table. The chair
shouldn't be chosen that way either and the rules that the commission sets for
itself, there should be some review and oversight as well. Those things will
make the process better.

Is this
ideal? No. We still have concerns overall with Bill 1 and the approach that is
being taken, but none of us are opposed to the concept of an Independent
Appointments Commission. I was hoping we'd be able to make enough changes to the
legislation this evening that we could at least live with it. But if we're not
going to fix clause 6, if we're not going to fix how these people are appointed
to begin with, then that's just such a deep, severe flaw that there may be no
saving this flawed piece of legislation. But we're going to do our best.

Despite
the fact that changes aren't being made here to clause 6, there are other
changes that can still be made and we'll continue to do our best. I thank you
for the opportunity to speak to these issues. We have many other changes that
we'll bring forward that we believe need to be made, but not fixing clause 6,
not fixing how that commission is appointed, not fixing how the chair is
selected, not fixing how the rules are set and monitored, that's a major miss.

It can
still be avoided if government chose to take a different approach, and we would
happily work with them to come up with language that's acceptable in order to
make that happen because it's so fundamental to what this bill is all about.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of
Municipal Affairs.

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll
just stand to have a few minutes to speak on this. As I said earlier, and I
don't mean to be political about this debate one bit, but in my opinion there is
no fairer way than bringing names forward to this Legislature. Both parties
already agreed that no matter if we set up a committee, government will have the
ultimate to say who's going to be on the committee anyway. So if we're going to
bring the names forward to this House of Assembly, everybody has the opportunity
to stand up and question the names put forth.

If you
look at the next proposed amendment that's going to be put forward it is to have
all members of the committee sign an impartiality letter saying they're going to
be impartial in their decisions. Even if you bring them forward, they still have
to sign a letter. If you go through an all-party committee and bring the names
forward, there's going to be another amendment coming up here in the next half
an hour or an hour or so saying they still have to sign the form to say they're
going to be impartial.

What is
the process? What is the best way to go about this? Once you get an all-party
committee, still they have to sign a form. So it boggles my mind on how they are
going to plan to say, okay, we agree with the process because no matter what,
they're going with one step now, setting up the all-party committee. The next
step is to make sure the ones that the all-party committee recommends, there is
going to be an amendment brought forward saying they have to sign a form of
impartiality.

I always
said the best way to do this, Madam Chair, and the best way to hear what you
have to say is not five people out in a room who are sitting down doing an
interview and people are going come out and say here's who we recommended. The
best way is to open up the Legislature. Bring the names forth. Let's go. If
anybody has a concern about the names that we're bringing forth on this
committee, let them stand in their own place and say here's the reason why.

If you
want them to stand all of a sudden and say, okay, we're going to sign a form
that says you're going to perform your duties with impartiality, I have no
problem with that. If you really feel you have to do that with the names you put
forth and question their integrity, okay, go ahead.

If they
want to sign that form, I have no problem whatsoever  none whatsoever. No
matter what, it's almost like, even with the all-party committee which both
sides said you can have a final say, even when they do come forward with the
all-party committee, there's an amendment going to be put in that they have to
sign an impartiality.

Madam
Chair, is it the best process? It's much better than what we've ever had. Are
there going to be changes down the road? Who knows? But I can guarantee you one
thing, the best part I like about it is that we can stand in our places here in
this Legislature and we can express our view, aye or nay, yes or no, about the
people, look at their credentials and say yes  we haven't even seen the five
names that are coming forward. We haven't even seen the five names.

Let's
see how it works first. Then with the amendment coming forth  I'm pretty sure
the amendment is going to come forth. You mark my words, as sure as I'm standing
here there's going to be an amendment saying make them sign an impartiality.

Okay, we
make them sign an impartiality; what then? Well, it's going to be another fly
into it, Madam Chair. So it is a bill that we're bringing forth to improve the
process, which we have done. I welcome all Members with their comments on it.
I'll take my seat and I'll just wait for the next amendment, which is going to
be signing a letter that each one is going to be impartial.

Thank
you, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St.
John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.

I am
happy to rise again to speak to clause 6. I was quite surprised by the vote of
government on our amendment  perhaps not so much surprised, but surprised
because it was a very reasonable amendment that was totally in the spirit of the
entire bill. I believe it was something that would enrich the process, not take
power away from anybody nor give power to anyone, because ultimately government
does have the authority  and that's as it should be. No one's debating that,
nobody's questioning that, at least not from this side of the House.

So I was
surprised, because this government has talked so much about modernizing the way
we do things, and modernizing our House of Assembly, making it more responsive
to the needs of the province. I applaud that, and I would believe them when they
say that. Why wouldn't you believe that?

I
believe that's what this amendment that was recently defeated was about. So
again, I would be curious to be able to speak to each individual Member and ask
why you voted against it. I can't imagine why vote against it  what would be
the reason for that? Again, because I know that process would enrich the whole
experience.

We've
had a fabulous experience with the All-Party Committee on Mental Health and
Addictions. It's been great, and all parties are represented there. It's going
to come down a little bit to the crunch because we're going to be making
recommendations. We all know that some of the recommendations we will make, some
of them might be tough, but we share that responsibility.

It's
been a great experience with the All-Party Committee on Northern Shrimp. Again,
it is a very difficult area, one that's so important for the province. It
doesn't take any power away from government, doesn't give any power to anyone,
but it's the process and the approach. We all know that we've all been elected
by the people in our districts. So every time we come into this House we all
know that we are bringing all of those people with us. The people have voted for
us because of a particular perspective that we would bring to the House. So I
would say to extrapolate from that, then it's also that perspective we would
bring to something like a select all-party committee to make those appointments
to the Independent Appointments Commission.

Again,
it's such a foundational piece because the work they will be doing for three
years is so crucial for our province. The agencies, boards and commissions make
up a huge part of our public service, managing huge resources or critical
decision-making abilities, and critical services to the people of the province.

It's
2016. We've all worked really hard to start that whole process of modernizing.
Why would we stop now? I can't imagine for what reason, other than hubris, to
not support such an amendment, to not look at clause 6.

I know
there are people across the floor who knows that it's a reasonable thing. It's
about enriching the way we do our work. Not taking power from, not giving power
to; it's really about doing something better. And why wouldn't we do that? It
doesn't cost any more money. What it does is it brings different perspectives to
the table which can only be enriching.

I
believe, again, that it protects government, it protects the people who will be
on, who will be chosen as the Independent Appointments Commission. It protects
them, and then it protects the people they've appointed because there's no doubt
that it's non-partisan. Why wouldn't we want that? It doesn't cost us money;
it's not going to take a whole lot more time. It's all about the safeguards and
being open to a whole other type of engagement process.

In this
kind of situation, as in the All-Party Committee on Mental Health, as in the
Electoral Boundaries Commission that was representative of different parties, it
means we're all pulling, ultimately, for the same goal. We might all have a
different way of getting there. We may have some different paths, some different
approaches that we bring to it.

Ultimately though, government makes that decision, so there's nothing that
government needs to fear. But I can't imagine what the reason would be not to do
it. I simply cannot imagine. I mean I can guess, but I would hope that there
would be an openness to modernize the way we do things. That has been stated by
this government again and again, but we're not seeing the follow-through. This
would be a follow-through on that. This would be concretely proving but also
following through on their own stated way of doing things.

I don't
get it. It's a mystery. It would be really interesting to hear from everybody
across the floor why you voted no. It makes no sense at this point to vote no to
something that is modernizing our process and using a tool at our disposal. We
didn't have to make it up, those tools are available. Those democratic tools
that help us do the best work we can possibly do are there for the taking. It's
there for us to use. It's there for people to use and I don't understand why
government would refuse to use those tools. They are there.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're not saying this is
wrong.

MS. ROGERS: A Member across the way is
saying: We're not saying this is wrong. Well, what I'm talking about is the
process to get there. Those are the tools at our disposal. We have a toolbox to
make our democratic process as open, as transparent and as enriched as possible
bringing all the perspectives. Why not use them? It doesn't cost money. It's not
going to take a whole lot more time and, again, it's a way that we work
together. The ways in the past while that we have been working together just
show how successful it is.

The
other thing is that the people of the province like it too. I think the people
of the province are proud. They're proud when we work together because that's
what they want to see. When we hear complaints  how many times they complain
about the lack of the ability to work together, and they want us to be able to
do that.

If
government doesn't do something other, it's really a wasted opportunity. It's a
shame. It really is a shame. It's a wasted opportunity. Those opportunities are
there for the taking and for the using. All it does is it brings us forward. It
propels us into a more modern approach to doing our work.

I do not
agree with the Member for Humber  Bay of Islands. We can't be debating in this
House about the pros and cons of individual private citizens, about whether or
not they are appropriate for certain appointments. We can't do that.

Already
we are asking a lot of people when we ask them to even consider positions to
serve in the public good and for public service. We can't be at that in this
House. That's not what this House is for. Ultimately, when those last decisions
are made, they are made and hopefully will have gone through a process that is
thorough, transparent, open and accountable and the decisions are made in the
best interests of the people.

So it's
unfortunate that government chooses not to use a tool that's at our disposal. I
would hope that government might reconsider that. I believe that would be
fulfilling this commitment to modernize the way we do things in this House.
We've had some recent successes. Let's build on that. Let's not go backwards. I
believe it's a step backwards not to do this.

I don't
think we can afford, in our province, to step backwards. But I believe we have
what it takes to move forward and to do things in a more modernized way.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS. ROGERS: Madam Chair, I thank you very
much again for the opportunity to speak to this bill and this amendment.

CHAIR: I remind the hon. Member her
time for speaking has expired.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers to
clause 6, we will vote on clause 6.

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, clause 6 carried.

CLERK:
Clause 7.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Good evening once again,
Madam Chair.

I would
like to take an opportunity to speak to clause 7. As I've advised you, Madam
Chair, I'll advise the House that there are a couple of amendments that we'd
like to propose related to clause 7.

The
first one may prove to be challenging because, again, we're suggesting that a
committee of this House could deal with some of the issues that we've been
raising here tonight. Given the previous rulings on proposed amendments, which I
respect, this may pose a challenge as well. But I still want to make the
argument because I think it's an important argument to make. It's about how
replacements for the commission members are chosen.

We do
believe that it's not too late to establish an all-party Select Committee of the
House to help with this entire process, and to give the whole process some more
legitimacy, credibility and actual independence.

So this
clause that I'd like to speak to now is actually subclause 7(4), and it's about
replacing commission members when the House is closed, when the House is not
sitting. Subclause 7(4) currently reads: Where the House of Assembly is not
sitting and a commissioner cannot act due to accident, illness, incapacity or
death, the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint a person to act in his or
her place, but that appointment shall be confirmed on resolution of the House of
Assembly within 10 sitting days of the House next sitting.

Again,
Madam Chair  oh, Mr. Chair, hello; good evening to you as well. The transition
happens rather fast sometimes. One minute it's Madam Chair and the next minute
there's another smiling face in the Chair.

Mr.
Chair, this goes back to the argument we've been presenting throughout the
evening that it should be a committee of the House and not the Cabinet that
makes these appointments. Such a committee could receive recommendations going
through the Public Service Commission process, which would make it a merit-based
process. That committee could gather input in a whole bunch of different ways,
but it would make sense to utilize the Public Service Commission process so that
there is something about the process that is merit-based rather than simply have
Cabinet appoint commissioners or, in this instance, appoint the replacement for
the commissioners.

That's
what we'd now like to present. Again, I respect the rulings that have been made
related to establishing this all-party committee, but I still fundamentally
believe it's a solution, which is why we're going to propose a similar change
here in subclause 7(4).

Our
amendment is to delete the words the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint
a person to act in his or her place and substitute the words then (a) the
Public Service Commission, using a merit-based process, shall recommend 3
persons to act in place of that commissioner; and (b) an all-party select
committee of the House of Assembly shall receive those recommendations from the
Public Service Commission and designate a person to act in place of that
commissioner; and (c) the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint that
person to act in place of that commissioner.

So the
amended subclause would read: Where the House of Assembly is not sitting and a
commissioner cannot act due to accident, illness, incapacity or death, then (a)
the Public Service Commission, using a merit-based process, shall recommend
three persons to act in place of that commissioner; and (b) an all-party Select
Committee of the House of Assembly shall receive those recommendations from the
Public Service Commission and designate a person to act in place of that
commissioner; and (c) the Lieutenant Governor in Council  which means Cabinet 
shall appoint that person to act in place of that commissioner, but that
appointment shall be confirmed on resolution of the House of Assembly within 10
sitting days of the House next sitting.

Now, Mr.
Chair, I think this makes sense. Because, in this instance, there's nothing
we're recommending here that is contingent on the previous changes we proposed.
In this instance, we're talking about an all-party select committee being
established to receive those recommendations.

We
believe that this amendment can stand on its own merit. It's not dependent on
previous amendments when we were debating previous clauses. So it's not too late
for us to establish this concept of a merit-based process to select
commissioners, setting up a committee of the House to receive those
recommendations from the Public Service Commission and then appoint people
accordingly.

The
arguments for doing so are very similar to the ones that we've presented earlier
tonight. Even though we're now debating a new clause, I'm not going to rehash
all of that. Our objective here is not just simply to prolong debate, we're
really trying to make changes that are going to make a difference and make this
legislation work.

So I
won't repeat all the arguments of why a committee makes sense, but I do feel
this change would stand on its own merit. I recognize the rulings that have been
made so far tonight. I'm fearful, for that reason, this one will also be ruled
out of order, but I do feel I need to make the case again because it's a point
worth considering.

I'll
move the following amendment, Mr. Chair: Subclause 7(4) is amended by deleting
the words Lieutenant-Governor in Council may appoint a person to act in his or
her place and substituting the words then (a) the Public Service Commission,
using a merit-based process, shall recommend 3 persons to act in place of that
commissioner; and (b) an all-party select committee of the House of Assembly
shall receive those recommendations from the Public Service Commission and
designate a person to act in place of that commissioner; and (c) the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall appoint that person to act in place of that
commissioner.

CHAIR (Lane): We will take a brief recess
to consider the amendment as brought forth by the hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.

The
Committee is now in recess.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

In
considering the proposed amendment to subclause 7(4), the Chair reviewed O'Brien
and Bosc, page 767, which states that: The committee's decisions must be
consistent with earlier decisions. With that in mind, clause 6 had been approved
and under clause 6(4) the chair is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in
Council.

In the
proposed amendment to section 7(4) rather than having the Lieutenant Governor in
Council make the appointment, the amendment would say that a select committee
would do so, which is inconsistent with the previous decision which negated the
establishment of a select committee. The amendment is therefore not in order.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Not
surprised by the ruling in light of your comments and previous rulings this
evening, so I thank you for the consideration. I do want to continue discussion
on clause 7. I will be proposing an additional amendment on clause 7 that does
not relate to the select all-party committee.

Before I
move on off that point, I just want to emphasize once again how this is really a
missed opportunity. What we've been focused on this evening is how the
commission gets formed, how it's appointed and the value in having some
independence around that process. If you want to take politics out of something,
you certainly have to take it away from the Cabinet table, which is what we've
been trying to achieve through the various amendments we've been discussing
tonight. I think those amendments in clause 6 and 7 are really critical to
addressing that issue of independence.

I'm
definitely disappointed, but nonetheless there are some other changes that we'd
like to propose making. I don't think they're as significant in some cases, to
be honest, which may mean  assuming they're in order  there may be an
opportunity here for government to acknowledge that some of the suggestions will
make the bill better. Having said that, I would urge government to consider how
that commission is appointed to begin with, how the chair is selected to begin
with, because there is still an opportunity, before this bill passes the House,
to make it right.

I'll now
move on to a different issue that is still in clause 7 and it relates to
subclause 7(6). The issue relates to an oath of impartiality. One of the Members
opposite, I think it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs, made reference to it
previously. Several weeks ago I had an opportunity to ask a question in Question
Period about this particular issue.

I don't
think it's controversial. I think it's a really small change that is perhaps
more symbolic than anything else. So this may be an opportunity for us to 
assuming the amendment is in order, Mr. Chair, it may be an opportunity for us
to make a small change. Not as substantial, not as important as some of the
other changes we've been discussing this evening, but still it's a change that
would make a slight improvement to the legislation that's proposed. The bill as
it stands doesn't require commissioners to take an oath of impartiality and we
believe it should. So our amendment is really simple, it's about adding a new
subclause.

We've
already asked for this during Question Period on March 21, I believe. The
question was: We have many concerns about government's proposed Appointments
Commission, and for this reason we will be advocating for changes to Bill 1. For
instance, many government appointees must swear an oath or make an affirmation
to be impartial.

Will
the government consider an amendment to Bill 1 to require appointments
commissioners to swear an oath or make an affirmation to be impartial?

There is
precedence for this, Mr. Chair. There are other government bodies where
appointees must swear an oath or make that kind of affirmation to say in this
instance that they would be impartial. I think it's a relatively simple,
straightforward amendment that is consistent with other bodies. I don't see a
lot of controversy attached to this one. I don't think it really changes the
substance of the bill. It definitely doesn't change the spirit and intent; it's
just a slight improvement. It doesn't fix the bill from our perspective, but
it's an improvement that I just think makes good sense. I hope that other
Members of the House will agree.

Our
amendment is to add immediately after subclause 7(5) a new subclause which will
be subclause (6) which reads: A commissioner shall, when appointed, take an
oath that he or she will be impartial in the carrying out of duties under this
Act.

Under
the Oaths Act an affirmation can serve
the purpose of an oath. Subclause 3(1) of the
Oaths Act states: A person who
objects to taking an oath may instead make a solemn affirmation. So, again it's
pretty straightforward, Mr. Chair.

I will
move the following amendment: Clause 7 of the bill is amended by adding
immediately after subclause (5) the following: (6) A commissioner shall, when
appointed, take an oath that he or she will be impartial in the carrying out of
duties under this Act.

CHAIR: The Chair has received this
proposed amendment in advance. We have reviewed it and we find the amendment to
be in order.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm
happy to be able to speak to this.

CHAIR: To the amendment.

MR. A. PARSONS: To the amendment, yes.

I can
say just a couple of points to this amendment which has been put forward here.
The first thing I'd say is that given the fact that these individuals are being
placed in a position of trust, given the fact that there is a resolution that
will be debated on the floor of this House of Assembly, I don't think that it's
absolutely necessary.

That
being said, we're certainly happy to agree to it. If it makes the Opposition
feel this will be a better piece of legislation, then I don't think it's
harmful, per se. I think these individuals, whoever is placed in this position,
will have no issue. The same as all Members in this House sign an oath then I
think these individuals will also have no issue signing an oath to carry out
their duties in an impartial manner.

So I can
just put forward to the Members of the Official Opposition, the Member for Mount
Pearl North, that again, pending any further comments, we will be supporting
this amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Just quickly, to say I thank
the Government House Leader for that commentary. I acknowledge this is not
essential. He makes a legitimate point, but I think it's still a good thing to
do. I'm pleased to hear him say that he supports this amendment. That's a
positive step and, hopefully, we can work together on some more amendments as
the evening continues.

Thank
you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers to
the amendment, shall the amendment carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

The
amendment is carried.

On
motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry, as
amended?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

On
motion, clause 7, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 8.

CHAIR: Shall clause 8 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

Carried.

On
motion, clause 8 carried.

CLERK: Clause 9.

CHAIR: Shall clause 9 carry?

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I'm very
happy to stand again to speak to Bill 1. As we know, when we look at the history
of gender equality, whether it be in the political arena or whether it be in
business, that things are moving very, very, very slowly. As a matter of fact,
sometimes we even see steps backwards.

The Huffington Post
released an article on September 30, 2015, which is just a little over half a
year ago, or about a half a year ago. It was written by Emily Peck. She's the
executive editor of business and technology at
The Huffington Post. The title of her
article is: Things are getting better very, very slowly.

She said
things are improving so slowly for women in corporate America  and I believe
it's the same in Canada  that we aren't going to achieve gender equality at the
top for another 100 years, according to a report released on Wednesday. She also
went on to say it's not for reasons that you might think. She said some of the
biggest barriers are cultural and related to unconscious biases that impact
company hiring, promotion and development processes.

If we
look at the political landscape as well, all we have to do is look here in our
House and of the 40 Members, only nine are women. That's less than 25 per cent
of the MHAs here in the House are women. But, we do know, when we look at the
federal election that we just had in 2015, women made up 533 of the 1,732
nominated candidates  so they made up 29.7 per cent  and women went on to win
88 of the 338 available seats. That's 26 per cent.

What
we're looking at, Mr. Chair, is that although we've made some gains, despite our
historical highs, Canada now only ranks 60th  60, not 16, but 60th in the world
when it comes to achieving equal representation in our democracy. What's even
worse is that we have fallen from being ranked 21st in the world  so Canada was
21st best in terms of gender representation in our elected positions in 1997,
and now we're 60th. So not only are we not progressing very quickly, in some
situations we're actually losing ground.

So we
talked this evening and debated about how important the Independent Appointments
Commission is and the crucial work that they will do, and how much of what they
do  that 43 per cent of the total of government expenditures are agencies,
boards and commissions that this Independent Appointments Commission will
appoint members to  43 per cent of the total of government expenditures. And
that is 75 per cent of the total public sector employment, so it's a
considerable piece of the activities and the action that goes on within our
province.

Mr.
Chair, I know that most of us in this House support gender equity.
Theoretically, most of us do  maybe all of us, who knows. I know that most of
us support diversity. We want to see diversity in appointments, in our
employment, in our political house. We want to make sure that the regions of the
province are represented, but just because we want that to happen it doesn't
mean it's going to happen.

The
proof is in the pudding, in the statistics that I've shown, that Canada is now
actually ranked 60th in terms of gender equity and gender representation in
political office. We've fallen. We used to be 27th and now we're 60th, so we
cannot simply rely on people's good will. We cannot simply rely on what we have
in our hearts, our theories or our political philosophies. We have to have
legislation, we have to have policy and we have to have regulations to ensure
that it happens. We know that there is a cultural bias and that it's so hard for
women to get beyond that.

The
amendment that we are proposing  and it's simply an amendment that gives
direction to the Independent Appointments Commission, that it gives them a
direction on how to work and how to move forward.

The
commission shall provide recommendations respecting appointments in accordance
with a merit-based process  I totally agree with that, Mr. Chair, totally  but
we add: and those recommendations shall accurately reflect the province's
society as a whole in terms of gender balance, diversity  we are becoming a
much more diverse population  and regional representation.

Again,
Mr. Chair, we have nothing to lose by this. This is again one more step towards
modernizing the way we do our business, modernizing the way that anyone we
appoint also carries forth that philosophical approach, that commitment to
equality. It also falls in line and is in alignment with our
Human Rights Act, which many people
have worked so hard to develop, and which we should all be using and I'm sure we
all use in this House as a valued principle in how we undertake our business.

So, Mr.
Chair, I have copies of the amendment here. I'll read it one more time without
embellishment and editorializing. This is an amendment in the Committee of the
Whole of the House for Bill 1, An Act to Establish an Independent Appointments
Commission and to Require a Merit-Based Process for Various Appointments.
Subclause 9(1) of the bill is amended by adding immediately after the word
process the words and those recommendations shall accurately reflect the
province's society as a whole in terms of gender balance, diversity and regional
representation.

I move
this 

AN HON. MEMBER: That is all you have to do.

MS. ROGERS: Oh, that is all I have to do,
apparently.

Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair. I have copies here which I will bring to the Table.

CHAIR: We are going to take a short
recess while we review the hon. Member's amendment to determine whether or not
the amendment is indeed in order.

The
Committee is now recessed.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair has considered the amendment. The principle of the bill is that the
appointments would be merit-based. Therefore, the amendment goes against the
principle of the bill. So it is not in order.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just
want to take a moment to speak to the proposed amendment. I am just speaking to
the general content that was put forward. I don't know if that's acceptable. I'm
obviously not questioning this at all, but I just wanted to have a discussion of
some of the comments that were made by the Member opposite.

From
what I can gather, just a couple of things I'll toss out. I believe, number one,
you mentioned human rights and the fact that under the
Human Rights Act it's discriminatory not to consider these factors.
I think in this case that's actually not going to be an issue. There is always a
lens applied, even if it's just a matter of policy within the Public Service
Commission. So I don't think that's going to be an issue here.

Again, I
see the Member  I didn't turn down the amendment, I say to the Member opposite.
What I'm saying is that the Public Service Commission does collect this info,
does tabulate this and is going to ensure that these things are considered. It's
not just going to be a gender lens. It's going to have to be a youth lens and it
has to be a regional lens, all this information.

At this
point, I will sit down and let the Member opposite have her say.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon.
the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I'm
happy to stand and speak to this again. I very much was listening to the
Minister of Justice there, and he is right that it should have a youth lens and
other lenses.

CHAIR: I would ask the hon. minister
what section of the Standing Orders he would be standing on?

MR. HAGGIE: (Inaudible) 49, no Member may
reflect upon any vote of the House except for the purpose of moving that such
vote be rescinded. This is not (inaudible).

CHAIR: The Chair never really heard
the commentary that the minister is referring to, so I'll have to review it and
report back at a later time.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. Minister  maybe the Chair is misunderstanding what
the hon. minister is trying to say.

MR. HAGGIE: I am objecting to the line of
discussion being put forward by the Member opposite under section 49, on the
basis that the Member is reflecting upon a vote of the House for purposes other
than moving that the vote be rescinded.

CHAIR: The hon. Member for St.
John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

Speaking
to the point of order, there has been no vote. There was an amendment turned
down. There was no vote by the House on that amendment. I presume the minister
is speaking about the Member for St. John's Centre. She's still speaking to the
section that she didn't get an amendment for, but she can still speak to the
section, I would put forward to you.

CHAIR: The Chair would have to agree
with the hon. Member for St. John's East  Quidi Vidi. There was no vote on this
section. Therefore, it is not a point of order.

I now
recognize the hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

Again,
I'm happy to get up and to speak to this section. I understand that the
amendment was ruled out of order and I would hope that government might consider
perhaps making another amendment to its own legislation that would reflect the
spirit of the amendments that we put forth. It's unfortunate that the Minister
of Justice sat down and I hope he does get up and I'm more than willing to
listen to what he is saying.

My
concern is that the Human Rights Act
would be in reaction to any kind of complaint. I know that not appointing women
or not appointing youth or not appointing diversity would not be in violation of
the Human Rights Act in and of itself.
It's only if a complaint were brought through that someone wasn't appointed
because they were a woman or somebody wasn't appointed because of their ethnic
origin or whatever.

What
this amendment asks for  and I ask government to perhaps consider a way that
they may be able to integrate this. I do know that government is committed to
gender equality. It's committed to pursuing diversity in all kinds of
appointments, but we do know that without guiding principles, without policy,
without legislation it doesn't work. It doesn't work.

Look at
this House of Assembly, it doesn't work. It doesn't work if it's just because we
want it to. We know that to be true. The evidence is there and we all know that
the evidence is there. I appeal to the Minister Responsible for the Status of
Women to speak on behalf of this. I appeal to her to speak on behalf of women.

If we
look at our boards and commissions  I spoke in this House when this legislation
was first introduced and I went down the list of appointments for the different
agencies, boards and commissions and looked at who were the heads of those
positions. It was embarrassing and I kept saying that I know that this is
tedious but I went male, male, male and the odd female, or man, man, man and the
odd woman. That's the reality. It's the reality. It's not someone's
philosophical approach. That is what's happening in this province, and unless we
do something about it, it's not going to change.

We see
that Canada was 27th in terms of gender equality in political positions years
ago, now we're 60th. It doesn't get better on its own. It simply doesn't get
better on its own. We have to do something that's proactive.

I appeal
to the Minister of Justice, I appeal to the government to do the right thing.
It's not just about representation of gender, it's about  the appointments have
to reflect our province. If they don't reflect our province, we keep committing
the same problem again and again and again. We have to get out of that loop,
because that's what it is, Mr. Chair. It's a vicious loop that keeps repeating
itself.

We need
something that binds the Independent Appointments Commission to reflect on the
diversity of the province in making those appointments. If not, we're not going
to see the change. It's so important we do.

I
believe it's Iceland  if not Iceland, it's another Norwegian or Scandinavian
country  where what they did is they passed legislation to say that 40 per cent
of the representatives in their government have to be male and 40 per cent have
to be female. So that makes it 80 per cent, and the 20 per cent  well, leave
that to whatever. But they knew that without those kinds of regulations we will
not get gender equality. We will not get equality in terms of diversification.
It doesn't work.

We've
been talking about this for years. Again, all we have to do is look around this
room. I wish I had brought with me the list of people who are heading some of
our most crucial and important agencies, boards and commissions. The majority of
them are led by men. Look at what happened when we just found out about the
sunshine list in Nalcor. The majority of the high earners and the managers there


CHAIR: I would ask the hon. Member 
I'm trying to provide as much latitude as I can, but I'm asking you to be
relevant to the bill.

MS. ROGERS: I understand that, Mr. Chair.

Well,
the relevance to the bill, Mr. Chair, is to look at what happens if there are no
guiding principles, if there are no directions to appointments what happens. We
see that again in this House. We see that at Nalcor. We see that in our boards
and our commissions.

Nalcor
is one of our agencies as well where appointments are made. We saw that the
majority of them in positions of management are men. It's undeniable. That's the
thing, it's undeniable. Even if we wanted to be different  if we believe it's
not going to be different, it's not going to happen because of cultural biases,
because of all the biases that we have to push against.

If we do
not do this, Mr. Chair, we will not see a difference. History has proven that.
The evidence is before us here tonight. All we have to do is look at our boards,
our commissions and our agencies, and it's evident. We also have to have
regional representation. We have to have representation. We need to see seniors
being able to be in positions to be able to make decisions. It's even more
crucial in some boards, agencies and commissions than perhaps others.

Again, I
appeal to the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women to look at this. How
many people do we have with physical disabilities managing any board or agency
or commission? I don't know, but certainly it should be if we request our
population 

CHAIR:
Order, please!

The
Chair reminds the hon. Member her time for speaking has expired.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Minister of Finance and Minister Responsible for Treasury Board.

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just
wanted to take a quick minute in the debate this evening to speak to this
particular section, in light of the comments by the Member opposite.

The work
we've done in bringing the legislation into the House had a very robust
discussion around the importance of making sure that gender lens and gender
equity was part of how we actually execute and operationalize the Independent
Appointments Commission. I think it's important for the Member opposite to know,
I've had three different meetings with the Public Service Commission lead, our
deputy there, to make sure that as we work through the regulations, that the
regulations reflect the intent, which is to make sure that individuals of merit
are provided an opportunity to get into the pipeline for consideration by the
Independent Appointments Commission, or the Public Service Commission, depending
on what tier board we're talking about.

Certainly, one of the most important things for us to do, in my responsibility
on the Public Service Commission, is to make sure we are actively recruiting and
encouraging all individuals, including, as the Member opposite has suggested,
women are participating at a higher level than they have been.

Mr.
Chair, I can assure the Member opposite, that from a regulatory perspective,
making sure we actually have the regulations in place that provide the action
that yields a result is something that's very important to our government as
part of this legislation. Equally providing opportunities for women throughout
the province, as well as other groups that we 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS. C. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

 other
groups that maybe feel that in the past they have been under-represented as part
of former administrations' practice of filling the board positions on agencies,
boards and commissions, that we provide an opportunity for those individuals to
participate in a very fulsome way through the recruitment position.

I would
suggest to the Member opposite, a legislative change in the absence of what we
have committed to, which is a robust regulatory regime supporting this
legislation in the actual execution of the legislation through the Public
Service Commission, I believe will be something that will provide opportunities
for us to have the boards that represent the agencies, boards and commissions to
be representative of the demographics in our province.

I'd also
remind the Member opposite, that the focus of the Independent Appointments
Commission is to make sure we have a merit-based approach. While there is no
doubt, there is a need for increased representation of women in all areas of
government, including this House, I would argue to the Member opposite, that
making that happen through the Independent Appointments Commission and the
regulations that will be in place will be a responsibility that I won't take
lightly. As a matter of fact, I've already had conversations with stakeholder
groups on this very issue.

I look
forward to continuing to discuss this in the House, Mr. Chair.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

This is
an extremely important issue. When we discussed this bill in second reading, and
even when we were briefed on this bill, we brought up the issue of the
commission only providing recommendations respecting appointments in accordance
with a merit-based process.

So, I'm
speaking to the fact that government has made a decision to use a process, which
we were told when we asked the questions  I think it was both here in the House
and in briefing  a process which itself, through the Public Service Commission,
it has been said very, very clearly that they use totally a merit-based process.
We brought up the problem with that, if that means you cannot also put on the
whole layer of diversity and see appointments through the lens of diversity.

I'm
very, very disappointed that government hasn't taken that seriously.

MS. ROGERS: Shocked.

MS. MICHAEL:
Yes, my colleague here says shocked. I am shocked that in this day and age the
government is putting this process in the hands of a commission and saying the
only thing being used is a merit-based process.

It's
just unbelievable actually. It's absolutely unbelievable and it explains, I
think  I'm sorry but the Official Opposition, you were government too and we've
had so many people put in positions on boards, et cetera, where in actual fact
our balance of men and women has gone skewed again. There was a while when more
women were being appointed. Now sometimes you're getting three and four
appointments made and not one woman or not one Aboriginal person or all from the
same area. It's happening over and over.

I'm
really imploring government, as has the Member for St. John's Centre and I think
we're going to hear from the Official Opposition as well, imploring you to
rethink this. You put in place a process that is flawed, seriously flawed. I'd
like you to look at what's happening in other provinces.

For
example, let's take one that's close to home, New Brunswick. They have an
appointment policy for New Brunswick's agencies, boards and commissions. They
say, A properly functioning board should have a diversity of
perspectives. This diversity could be gained by having a board with a mixture of
professional qualifications, or it could come from having a board with differing
personal experiences (ideally, a board will have both). Therefore, special
efforts will be made to appoint individuals from a diverse set of professional
backgrounds, while being inclusive of New Brunswick's two official linguistic
communities, women, First Nations, persons with disabilities, visible minority
groups, and residents from all regions of the province.

I would like to suggest that New Brunswick is light-years
ahead of this piece of legislation that government is putting
in place. I can't believe
that you're doing it in this day and age. So you're saying we put it in the
hands of the Public Service Commission, they use merit based and then that's
fine. It's not. It's going to be up to government to have to recognize and how
you're going to  we got to have it in legislation, like my colleague has said.
It will not happen if it's not in legislation. It will not happen. So you've got
to put in legislation how the commission is going to relate to government to
meet those needs. You have to make sure that it's in there or it's not going to
happen. It's not happening now, so it's not going to happen.

If
there's a particular board, for example, that's going to be appointed and you
need two or three people on that board, I would say the commission has an
obligation to make sure that the new appointments add diversity to the board.
They have, but there's nothing in this to say that. So you're leaving it in the
hands of this so-called neutral process under the Public Service Commission.
That can't be, and that's what was said to me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

MS. MICHAEL: May I continue speaking, Mr.
Chair?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL: It seems like the minister is
not even conferring with me. I'm talking about some really serious stuff here. I
don't want to be made fun of; I don't want to be mocked. This is 2016 and we
cannot see how to put into this legislation something that will cover diversity.
I think the minister is probably embarrassed that it's not here.

Let's
look at British Columbia. Their body is called the Board Resourcing and
Development Office. Every province has a different name. What do they say in
British Columbia? In this agency's appointment process guidelines, which are
over a decade old, they look for a diversity of professional skills, experience
and approaches to problem solving is critical for effective board performance.
Rather, the recruitment process should be undertaken in such a way that it
facilitates the consideration of people from these minority populations based on
the particular skill sets sought.

So you
see what they've done. Yes, there's a skill set that they're looking for and,
yes, they want merit; but they also put in the layer that you are looking for
people from minority populations. Folks, we're not making this up. This is the
world of today. We have a piece of legislation that's not recognizing it. I
mean, it's absolutely unbelievable.

If
government is getting upset over there, I'd say they are being defensive because
they know that they're making a mistake. In Manitoba they say agencies, boards
and commissions need members with a variety of qualifications and competencies
in order to carry out their mandate. A diverse mix of experience, age, gender
and culture can bring valuable perspectives, options and insights.

The
guidelines also note the fluidity of the challenges faced by recruitment.
Challenges change over time, but they have to be met, and the composition of
members and the expertise which may assist an organization should also evolve
over time. Surely to goodness we've evolved in this province into understanding
how to make a piece of legislation recognize diversity. Just hiding behind the
merit based  I mean, the ruling that the Chair had to make, I fully understand
because it's filled with this merit based, without any other layer.

There's
no other layer in the piece of legislation, no other lens; it's all just the
merit based. I think we should be ashamed of that. I think we should be ashamed
to say, well, it's in the hands of our Public Service Commission and all they do
is look at merit based. There's something wrong with our whole practice here.

This is
the time to try to make a change. This is the time. We have a piece of
legislation here that is flawed in a couple of serious ways that we've pointed
out. I hope to goodness  well, I'd like to see change. Are we going to see in
two years' time with what we saw with Bill 1, what we saw with Bill 29, the
infamous Bill 29, that both parties in the House voted for initially and the
Official Opposition finally changed their mind when they were government and
made changes and brought it back to where it should have been because they
finally listened to the uproar?

Well, I
suggest there is going to be uproar over putting in a piece of legislation with
regard to appointments to all these major bodies that are covered by the
legislation  major bodies, and we're not just talking about positions at the
top. In most cases, you are talking about appointments to boards as well. To say
that all of that is going to be only merit based is just unconscionable in this
day and age.

If
government over there is feeling defensive and ashamed, they should. They
shouldn't get angry with us because of the mess that they've made in this piece
of legislation. It is absolutely unbelievable.

I think
I've said what I have to say, Mr. Chair. I think the Official Opposition will
follow me.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want
to just rise briefly and speak in support of the sentiments expressed by the
Third Party here this evening. Debates can get emotional in the House. We've
seen that many times in the past, and sometimes for good reason.

What I
want to focus on here is the notion that was put forward earlier this evening by
the New Democratic Party to basically try and get yet another issue addressed in
this legislation that would make it a little bit better. Amendments can be ruled
technically out of order. That's part of this process, but the point I want to
make in relation to clause 9 that we're now debating is just like the issues we
raised in clause 6 and 7, there's still an opportunity here to address the
concerns that are being brought forward. There is still an opportunity to bring
forward more amendments if government wishes. They can make this right.

When it
comes to issues like ensuring gender balance and diversity and regional
representation, I don't think it's reasonable to say, well, we can just trust
that will happen. Because if we look at the public service today, if we look at
this Legislature, if we look at other systems in our democracy, it doesn't just
happen. It takes a heck of a lot of commitment and work. Maybe we'll get to a
point in our society where it will just happen but I don't believe we're there,
sadly. So an effort to put something in the legislation that ensures this
commission would have to consider issues like gender balance and diversity and
regional representation, I think that will be a positive improvement.

I want
to stand and support that principle while we're debating clause 9. I think that
not finding a way to enshrine that in the legislation is another missed
opportunity. Just like the missed opportunities we were talking about earlier
around ensuring the appointments of the commission are independent and some of
the other issues we've raised that we think are serious.

Well, I
think the suggestions that have been put forward tonight by the New Democratic
Party make good sense. I would urge government to figure out a way to enshrine
those issues into the legislation. Maybe clause 9 is the appropriate place. It
feels to me like it is. Somewhere here in clause 9 that we're debating this
evening, but if not here then somewhere else in the legislation.

Just
like I would encourage the government to consider the concerns we've raised
around how the commission gets appointed. Even if some of the amendments we've
proposed are ruled out of order for technical reasons or for some other reason,
it doesn't mean there isn't a good argument to be made for making changes to
make the legislation better. So that's the point I want to make while we're
still debating clause 9 here this evening, Mr. Chair.

It makes
sense that the appointments that are going to be recommended by this commission
 and ultimately made in the Cabinet room behind closed doors, unfortunately. It
makes sense that those recommendations should reflect Newfoundland and Labrador
and reflect Canada today and address issues like gender balance and diversity
overall, and regional representation overall. That just won't happen on its own.
I do think there's merit in finding a way to work that into the legislation.

I wanted
to rise tonight to speak in support of the effort that my colleagues are making,
because it's the right thing to do, Mr. Chair. It's the right thing to do, and
that's why we support the notion that's been advanced by the New Democratic
Party tonight.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

It's odd
to be standing in May of 2016 to have to be debating and arguing and pushing for
this at this time in our evolution. I'm quite surprised.

I'm
particularly surprised as well by the Minister Responsible for the Status of
Women, because if not her, then who on that side of the House will stand up and
look at this issue? She, above anyone else, should understand the ramifications
of not  putting something in this legislation that binds the commission to
reflect the diversity of the province in making appointments. That's what we are
talking about.

We are
talking about putting something in legislation that would bind the commission to
ensure that diversity of the province is reflected in the appointments to our
agencies, boards and commissions. That is not an unreasonable request. As a
matter of fact, I believe it's probably best practices in almost every province
in the country.

We know
the Premier noted when he introduced the legislation to create an Independent
Appointments Commission that the province's agencies, boards and commissions
make up 43 per cent of the total of government's expenditures. That is 75 per
cent of the total public sector employment. That's what we're talking about, Mr.
Chair, a considerable piece of the activities and the action that goes on within
our province.

The
Premier has clearly said he wants to modernize how appointments are made. He has
a clear path for the most qualified people to apply for a position, be
considered and selected on the merits, but without something binding the
commission to reflecting the diversity of the province, it isn't going to
happen.

This
does not diminish, in any way whatsoever, the merit-based overriding principle.
It does not. This is the kind of legislation that human rights activists, women,
people from the disability community, that First Nations people have been
pushing for and fighting for, for decades. We thought we had solved this issue,
and here we are in our House of Assembly as if none of that has happened. I feel
like I'm Alice in Wonderland at the Mad Hatter's tea party. I cannot believe it.

Let's
look at what's happening federally. My colleague from St. John's East  Quidi
Vidi pointed out what's happening in a number of provinces. Let's look at what's
happening federally. Also, the Liberals federally made a decision, the prime
minister made a decision to appoint half of his Cabinet women. Also, there are a
number of faces in that Cabinet that reflect the diversity of the country.

In 2008,
the federal Conservative Party election platform promised to continue to 

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair is providing, I think, a lot of latitude.

MS. ROGERS: Yes.

CHAIR: But I would ask the hon.
Member to bring her points back to the merits of section 9 of this particular
bill, Bill 1. That's what we're debating.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

What I
am doing is looking at diversity does not affect the merit principle whatsoever;
but, in fact, what we are looking at is what is happening in other boards, in
other jurisdictions when they do appointments, what they use as their guiding
principles. Because that is what we're looking at right now, what's happening in
other jurisdictions that provide legislation and guiding principles to their
Independent Appointments Commission.

What
happened in 2008, federally, the government, in fact, didn't follow through
because they said that they were going to appoint a taskforce to find ways to
ensure that appointees to federal agencies  which is what we're talking about
here  and Crown corporations reflect the diversity of Canada in language,
gender, region, age and ethnicity. So they're talking about appointments, their
commission that appoints to boards, agencies and commissions. It didn't happen.

Now the
federal government recently, on May 2016, changed the appointment process to
reflect the fundamental role that appointees play  and that's more than 1,500
people. So this is what the Appointments Commission for the federal government
has done in relation to appointments to their agencies, boards and commissions.
The federal government has decided appointments will achieve gender parity and
reflect Canada's diversity in terms of linguistic, regional and employment
equity representation.

So, Mr.
Chair, it's happening everywhere and why government wouldn't do this and hold us
back  this is not state of the art; this is state of ark. That's what it is.
It's state of ark; it's not state of the art. We can expect better. I expect
better out of this government. I know that they can do better and I know that
they can do the right thing.

I am not
sure what will stop it now. I am pleading to government to do the right thing. I
am pleading to the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women to do something
that would make it binding for the Independent Appointments Commission to make
recommendations, keeping in the mind the diversity of the province. We know,
history has shown us, all the recent research has shown us, the very faces that
sit in these chairs in this House of Assembly have shown us, the heads of our
agencies, boards and commissions in the province shows us it doesn't work unless
it is legislated.

For
government to not take the steps necessary to ensure that these appointments
reflect the diversity of the province is nothing short of I don't know what 
again, I can't believe that, in 2016, we're debating this like this. It should
be a given. This is about enriching our province; this is about making sure that
the people of the province are represented. What is wrong with that? What is
wrong is to not put in place measures that do ensure that is happening.

Mr.
Chair, I'm going to sit down because I don't think there's anything left to say.
It's just so clear. I hope that this government will do the right thing and not
drag us kicking and screaming backwards but, instead, propelling us forward and
do the right thing.

Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's East  Quidi Vidi.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I just
want to make a couple more points with regard to the whole issue of the
appointments happening based on merit. Nobody has any problem with that. We
obviously want appointments to be based on merit, but history has shown us  and
there is all kinds of research to show us  that because we are still in a
society that is patriarchal actually, we're still in that society that when
people, when organizations, when governments, when businesses, when boards
themselves look at new members to go on their boards or people to be in certain
positions, because of the male dominance there is this thing where they're only
looking at males when it comes to merit. It's a fact. It's a scientific fact.
It's been researched.

So you
have to make an effort in realizing that person in a wheelchair also has merit;
can do this job. You have to look at that women can do this job. You have to
look at the person with a brown face can do this job. You have to look at this
Aboriginal woman can do this job. It won't happen without that.

That's
why in Ontario  their body is called the Public Appointments Secretariat; PAS
is its acronym. PAS does stipulate government has a responsibility to ensure
government agencies are made up of members who are qualified to do the job and
are representative of all segments of Ontario's society.

So it's
a repetition of what I referred to earlier when I said what British Columbia has
in theirs. The name of their body is the Board Resourcing and Development
Office. When I read what they have in Manitoba, in Manitoba the appointments are
actually under the Auditor General. It's called the Auditor General/agencies,
boards and commissions. That's the name of their body and I read what they have.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS. MICHAEL: In New Brunswick, they don't
so much have a body but they have their policy, the appointment policy, and I've
outlined what is in their appointment policy.

So the
point I'm making is that it's not merit based or diversity  we want merit based
 but it's the recognition that because of how we have developed in a
patriarchal society that unless we look for merit in other places besides in
male domain, we continue to have male dominated. And, in our society, it's not
clichι, it's just a reality: white male dominance. That's the reality.

If we
say we have a Human Rights Code in our province, we have a Women's Policy Office
 I remember some years ago under another premier  well, four or five premiers
ago now, I suppose  saying that the government believed in making sure that
women were getting appointed to boards. What we're saying here today is it's not
just women, it's the whole face of our province and the merit-based process on
its own is not going to work.

I really
am pleading with the government, stop this process, slow down, work on this and
get it right before we vote on it and make it legislation, because you'll be
carrying it on your heads. There's no way that we can vote for this bill as it
is. We can't. We just can't vote for it as it is. It has other things that are
small things that we might like to see changed, but the two issues we've brought
up, and which have also been spoken to by the Official Opposition, are crucial
issues. And this issue of the merit based is just so obvious.

Again,
I'm not going to go on much longer because I said a lot the last time I was up.
But I wanted to get on record the other places in the country where they are
concerned about this and where they have systemically put stuff in either
legislation or rules and regulations to make sure. And I'm not comforted by the
Minister Responsible for the Status of Women saying trust us. It's not you. It's
the process that is being put in place and we have to have it built into the
process.

So it's
not who you are as individuals; it's not even who you are as a government. This
has to be a piece of legislation that on its own, on its own legs, used by
anybody, used by any party who happens to be government, used by any of the
public service sector, legislation that on its own will ensure that not only
will people of merit and skills and experience be on our boards and be in the
heads of our various agencies, but we will also have the diversity we've talked
about already: women and men, Aboriginal people, people who are immigrants who
are not part of our society, people with disabilities, regional differences.

Once
again, it's 2016, please stop it. Please make the changes to this legislation.
We're not going to make any more amendments. It's in your hands. Make the
changes. Minister, you can stop this and say we'll put this on hold and make
changes.

I know
of other pieces of legislation over the years I've been here that got withdrawn
and held back and changed and came back to the House. That can happen with this,
too. Let's do the right thing. Let's not do what  and I mentioned earlier.
Let's not repeat Bill 29.

Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for the District of St. John's Centre.

MS. ROGERS: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I fear
that not only is the budget that this government passed hurting women
disproportionately, but they now refuse to ensure that women are fairly
represented in our agencies, boards and commissions.

Mr.
Chair, I asked the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women if a gender lens
was applied to the budget. I asked her to table that. We haven't seen that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS. ROGERS: So I ask her now, was a
gender lens applied to this piece of legislation? If so, can she table it?

I ask
the minister: Did this piece of legislation pass through the Women's Policy
Office? Did the Women's Policy Office analyze this particular piece of
legislation as it relates to their mandate? Was there a specific gender lens
tool applied to this piece of legislation before it came to the House?

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just
rising briefly once again to speak to clause 9. I think the questions that are
being posed by the Member for St. John's Centre are legitimate questions. I hope
that while we're working through this bill together at Committee stage that we
will get some answers to those questions around what thought and what research
has gone into getting us to where we are.

Again,
I'd highlight that while some amendments may pass tonight and some may fail, and
some amendments might be ruled in order and others may not, there's still an
opportunity to make this right. There's still an opportunity for government to
do, as the leader of the New Democratic Party was just suggesting, maybe just
press pause and go away and do some of the work that's required to make this
bill work better.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair reminds the hon. Member that we are speaking specifically to clause 9, and
I would ask the Member that he direct his comments toward that particular
clause.

MR. KENT: No problem, Mr. Chair. Thank
you.

Clause 9
is very much about the merit-based process. In addition to focusing on a
merit-based process, which makes lots of good sense, there are other things that
need to be considered: like overall diversity, like making sure we have
appropriate gender balance, like making sure the various regions of this
province are reflected in the appointments that get made. So it's not simply
about determining whether people are technically qualified to serve in a given
role. It's also important that consideration be given to those other factors.

Anyway,
the Member for St. John's Centre has raised some legitimate questions. I
respectfully ask Members of government to respond to those questions because I
think they're worth discussing as we work our way through this bill.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: Shall clause 9 carry?

Seeing
no other speakers; all those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The vote has been taken.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: The Chair would say to the
hon. Member, an opportunity was given, nobody stood. The question was called, it
was voted on.

Clause 9
is carried.

On
motion, clause 9 carried.

CLERK:
Clause 10.

CHAIR: Shall clause 10 carry?

The hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We had
an additional amendment for clause 9. I couldn't rise because, of course, there
needs to be an intervening speaker. I saw the Member for Conception Bay South
take to his feet. It's unfortunate he didn't get an opportunity because we did
have an additional amendment to clause 9 that we wish to present.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair would remind the hon. Member that clause 9 has been voted on, it has been
passed. So we are now on clause 10.

MR. KENT: We are.

CHAIR: The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North.

MR. KENT: I'll speak to clause 10.
Given that we didn't get an opportunity to present our additional amendment on
clause 9, I'll now propose another amendment to clause 10. It relates to the
commission's report when it can't appoint three appointees. I'd like to speak to
that now, Mr. Chair.

We just
spent considerable time talking about the merit-based process. Sometimes the
commission will not be able to recommend three appointees for a post. The
current bill says when this happens the commission will have to report to
Cabinet on its best efforts.

Once
again, we've got a process that's shrouded in Cabinet secrecy. We believe the
commission should report to the Speaker of the House and the report should be
made public. The commission should be accountable to the people, and this is the
people's House. So it just makes sense that rather than have that report go to
Cabinet and be discussed behind closed doors, that there be discussion in this
House.

Subclause 10(2) currently reads, Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(b), where, in
the opinion of the commission, it is not possible to recommend 3 persons for an
appointment, the commission may recommend fewer than 3 persons but in that case
it shall report to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or minister, as
appropriate, outlining its efforts to comply with paragraph (1)(b).

I'm
going to propose another amendment, Mr. Chair, that would delete
Lieutenant-Governor in Council or minister, as appropriate, and substitute
Speaker of the House of Assembly. Because if you want to take politics out of
this, then the decisions can't continue to be made in secrecy behind closed
doors in minister's offices or at the Cabinet table. That is the fundamental
problem with this legislation. In various sections of the bill we've pointed it
out. We're pointing it out again here in clause 10.

Our
amendment would insert before the final period, the following words, and the
Speaker shall table a copy of it in the House of Assembly immediately after
receiving it if the Assembly is sitting or, if it is not, the Speaker shall give
a copy of the report to the Clerk of the House of Assembly and immediately after
receipt of that report by the Clerk it shall be considered to have been tabled
in the House.

The amended subclause would read: Notwithstanding
paragraph (1)(b), where, in the opinion of the commission, it is not possible to
recommend three persons for an appointment, the commission may recommend fewer
than three persons; but, in that case, it shall report to the Speaker of the
House of Assembly, outlining its efforts to comply with paragraph (1)(b) and the
Speaker shall table a copy of it in the House of Assembly immediately after
receiving it if the Assembly is sitting or, if it is not, the Speaker shall give
a copy of the report to the Clerk of the House of Assembly and immediately after
receipt of that report by the Clerk it shall be considered to have been tabled
in the House.

I need to note, Mr. Chair, because it's relevant to
this amendment that I'm going to propose that there's a parallel amendment to
clause 16 regarding the Public Service Commission. So I want to note this
amendment's tabling provisions reflect the wording of the
Public Interest Disclosure and Whistleblower Protection Act which is
another piece of legislation in this House of Assembly.

That subsection reads:The report shall be given to the Speaker, who shall table a
copy of it in the House of Assembly within 15 days after receiving it if the
Assembly is sitting or, if it is not, the Speaker shall give a copy of the
report to the Clerk of the House of Assembly and after 15 days after receipt of
that report by the Clerk it shall be considered to have been tabled in the
House.

I point that out because the wording we're proposing
here is along the lines of an amendment that was proposed by the Member for
Burgeo  La Poile in the House in 2014 and it did pass. Ours is similar, but
it's not identical because ours calls for the release immediately and not after
15 days. I could quote what was said at the time, but I don't feel it's
necessary to go into all of that, depending on how the debate unfolds on this
particular amendment.

We think there is precedence for this. Our provision
regarding immediate tabling in the House does actually reflect wording that's
also in the Centre for Health Information
Act and it reads, The report and statements referred to in subsection (1) shall be
submitted to the Speaker of the House of Assembly and the Speaker shall table
the report and statements in the House of Assembly immediately after receipt of
the report by him or her or, where the House of Assembly is not then sitting,
within 7 days after it resumes sitting.

Really
what we're talking about is amalgamating those provisions here. I think there's
sufficient precedence for this. Again, we're trying to address what happens when
the commission's report is that it cannot recommend three appointees and then
where that report goes from there.

Now that I've provided you with those references to the
Public Interest Disclosure and
Whistleblower Protection Act and the
Centre for Health Information Act, I'll now read the amendment into the
record and move the following amendment:

Subclause 10(2) of the bill is amended by deleting the
words and commas Lieutenant-Governor in Council or minister, as appropriate,
and substituting the words Speaker of the House of Assembly and by adding
immediately before the period at the end of the subclause a comma and the
following: and the Speaker shall table a copy of it in the House of Assembly
immediately after receiving it if the Assembly is sitting or, if it is not, the
Speaker shall give a copy of the report to the Clerk of the House of Assembly
and immediately after receipt of that report by the Clerk it shall be considered
to have been tabled in the House.

CHAIR: The
Chair has received this amendment in advance and considered the amendment, and
has found this amendment to be in order.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl North, to the
amendment.

MR.
KENT:
Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've outlined the rationale for the amendment. I won't
repeat all of that. I'm glad that the amendment is in order. I think what we're
proposing is a sensible change. It's about making this process more transparent,
removing politics from it and having less decisions made behind closed doors in
the Cabinet room and more decisions made in a process that's connected to this
Legislature, to the people's House.

So I think establishing this role for the Speaker and
making sure that the reports are issued and provided in a timely fashion makes
good sense. I won't prolong the matter. I think this is a sensible and
reasonable amendment, and I ask for government's consideration.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS:
Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of St. John's East  Quidi
Vidi.

MS.
MICHAEL:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I don't have a lot to say because this is very
straightforward, and I think it makes a lot of sense actually in terms of
openness and transparency because when we read what 10(2) says, it says:  the
commission may recommend fewer than 3 persons but in that case it shall report
to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council or minister, as appropriate, outlining its
efforts to comply with paragraph (1)(b).

What the report will be doing, it doesn't look like to
me that it would be personal, naming people. We've had this discussion in second
reading about we have to be careful about names being used. That was why we had
it presented to us, and I actually agreed with it, that if a name goes in and
it's rejected by government, it really would not be proper to release that name
publicly.

But what's being talked about here is process; the
commission recommending what it's gone through and why it has fewer than three
persons. They definitely would not have to name names or anything, just the
process. It could be as simple as they didn't have enough applicants or they
didn't have enough applicants who had the background that was needed, et cetera.

I think from that perspective, it certainly is not a
violation of confidentiality to do that kind of report. Based on that, I think
the amendment that's being put forward really does make sense and I support it.

Thank you.

CHAIR: The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS.
COADY:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the
amendment. I've listened very intently all night to a lot of discussion and a
lot of amendments, a lot of changes proposed to this bill. I listened intently
because I thought it was very important, and I've spoken to it a couple of times
already. This bill really speaks to ensuring that we have a process to place the
best, the most qualified candidates. It encourages some separation in making
sure that we do not have a political lens on people being appointed to our
boards, commissions and agencies, making sure that we do as best possible to
have the right people of the boards, agencies and commissions that are so
important to the people of the province.

Mr. Chair, what bothers me most is when we consider a
process, when we consider how best to move forward and choosing people to sit on
boards, agencies and commissions, we want to make sure that we have a process
that's fair, that's equitable, that encourages people from around the province,
that encourages diversity, that encourages people to be involved, that we have
an ability to choose, then, from an array of people from around this province.
We open up the process.

Far too often the former government for the last 12
years did a lot of this behind closed doors. I listened intently to the Member
opposite when he kept saying behind closed doors. Mr. Chair, the intent is to throw open the doors, to
ensure that we have a website collecting addresses, people's interests, people's
resumes, people's involvement, people's information to ensure that we have a
vetting, if you would, of all those who would be interested in being involved.

Mr.
Chair, I think it's of concern to me, as an accredited corporate director, that
opportunity to have the politics removed from this and the opportunity to ensure
that we have some 

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair would just remind the hon. the minister that we are currently debating
clause 10. Clause 10 is pertaining to the concept of if we are unable to appoint
three persons to the board, what the process would be. We're debating the
amendment around that. So I would ask the minister if she could try to bring the
comments relevant to the amendment.

MS. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

My
relevant point was the entire bill itself, including this proposed amendment,
was  we felt the bill itself, the Independent Appointments Commission, did take
politics out of it. I think in making the amendment it is just trying to layer
another mechanism on top of that.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS. COADY: I'll continue to listen to
the debate, continue to listen to what they have to say on this very issue and
perhaps they can change my mind, Mr. Chair. But my concern here is that we're
layering on more provisions rather than trying to get to the heart of the
matter, which is ensuring that we have the right process for agencies, boards
and commissions.

Thank
you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Mr. Chair, we're not layering
on anything. What we're talking about is taking this out of the Cabinet room and
having an impartial process that's non-political, where there's a greater role
for the House of Assembly to play. So I'm not sure what the minister is
referring to.

What
we're doing here is addressing the issue when the commission is not able to
recommend three appointees for a post. If that happens, they report to Cabinet.
We're saying there's a better way. We're saying make it public, report to the
Speaker of the House. The commission should be accountable to the people. That's
what we're saying. We're not adding an extra process. In fact, if it had to go
through Cabinet to ultimately get publicly exposed at some point, well, that's
additional layers.

We're
saying skip all that. Skip the behind-closed-doors stuff; skip the smoke and
mirrors of pretending this is an impartial, independent process when all the
decisions are still going to be made at the Cabinet table. Call it for what it
is and if you're actually serious, then bring those kinds of recommendations,
like the ones we're addressing here in subclause 10(2), directly to the House of
Assembly.

I
believe that's the right move. I believe there's precedent for it. I've pointed
that out in two other pieces of legislation, so I'm disappointed to hear
government ministers rise and speak against this. Passing this amendment would
demonstrate some commitment to making this thing a little less political and a
little bit more legitimate. I'm very saddened to hear the commentary that was
just presented by the Minister of Natural Resources.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm
happy to stand and speak to section 10 and the amendment made by the Deputy
Opposition House Leader. For those out there watching, when you look at section
10 basically what that's saying is that: The commission shall, (a) together
with the Public Service Commission, administer a merit-based process for
appointments; and (b) recommend 3 persons for those appointments.

(2)
Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(b), where, in the opinion of the commission, it is
not possible to recommend 3 persons for an appointment, the commission may
recommend fewer than 3 persons but in that case it shall report to the
Lieutenant-Governor in Council or minister, as appropriate, outlining its
efforts to comply with paragraph (1)(b). So I think in the amendment put
forward by the Deputy Opposition House Leader, they're replacing LGIC or
minister with Speaker of the House and then saying that the Speaker shall table
a copy in the House after.

The
first thing I would argue is that we're talking about a process here. Hopefully,
I'd like to think that this will not be the situation where you have less than
three appointments. I'm hoping that we have the interest for every position
that's advertised publicly. Something that's never been done before.

I'm
going to stay away from the Member opposite's commentary at the end of his last
speech talking about it's saddening because it's so political. I'm going to stay
away from that because I'm going to try to talk about the merit-based process
we're working with here, and we're moving to something that they never had the
time to do.

In this
case, where the PSC doesn't get the three applications for a particular board or
agency, so you will go to, whether it's the minister that's appropriate or the
LGIC and say, look, we couldn't get the three persons so we need to ensure that
it reported.

The
amendment that has been put forward is that should now go to the Speaker, but
the Speaker has nothing to do in terms of legislation. There's no responsibility
for legislation and also is not responsible for appointments. So I fail to see
why this amendment would make the legislation any stronger or any better. I
certainly disagree with it.

I've sat
here and listened to the amendments put forward. In fact, we supported one.
Unfortunately, many of them were not approved, but in this case, this is not
something that I think strengthens or makes the legislation any better. In fact,
I think it is contrary to it.

The fact
is we're moving to a process where the PSC  again, they're going to have
policies set up similar to other provinces where it's open for applications.
Everybody should apply. It's not based on who you know. It's based on if you
have interest and go through the website and you see a position you might be
interested in, you submit your application. A particular board, commission or
agency may not get the prerequisite amount of interest to all for three
qualified individuals. If that's the case that will be reported by the minister
or the LGIC, whoever is appropriate.

I think
that's the best you can do in the situation you have here. Having it reported to
the Speaker, who again has no involvement in this, I don't think adds anything
to it. Unless there are other comments, that would be our position on that
particular amendment.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers to
the amendment, we'll call the question.

All
those in favour of the amendment as proposed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On
motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 10 carry?

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Clause 10 is carried.

On
motion, clause 10 carried.

CLERK: Clause 11.

CHAIR: Shall clause 11 carry?

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: I'll rise quickly, Mr. Chair,
to make sure I don't miss my opportunity. I want to propose an amendment to
clause 11. The issue I want to raise is about explicitly empowering the Public
Service Commission to use experts to find candidates. This is another important
consideration. I think we can improve upon clause 11 of Bill 1.

Clause
11 is about directing the Public Service Commission to support the commission in
its work to find suitable candidates for positions. We believe there should be
an explicit statement that the commission can rely on the Public Service
Commission to use persons with expertise in finding suitable candidates for
positions in particular fields of employment. This statement reflects our belief
that the process should look for the very best candidates to serve the people in
the province.

We
support the intent that was proposed here. The concept of finding the best
people for the job and having a transparent process to appoint them makes good
sense, but we don't feel that Bill 1 achieves that at all. Here we think there's
an opportunity to make sure that the Public Service Commission and the
Independent Appointments Commission does the best it can to get people with
expertise to find the right people with the right skills and experience, and
draw on the expertise of people in particular fields as necessary.

Subclause 11(1) reads: The Public Service Commission shall support and advise
the commission in the execution of its duties and the conduct of its business.
Subclause 11(2) currently reads: In addition to subsection (1), the Public
Service Commission shall do those other things that are requested by the
commission, where those things are required by the commission in the exercise of
its duties under this Act.

What we
want to do, Mr. Chair, is add the following words at the end of subclause 11(2),
and I quote: including using persons with expertise in finding suitable
candidates for positions in particular fields of employment.

The
amended subclause 11(2) would read: In addition to subsection (1), the Public
Service Commission shall do those other things that are requested by the
commission, where those things are required by the commission in the exercise of
its duties under this act including using persons with expertise in finding
suitable candidates for positions in particular fields of employment.

Mr.
Chair, for lots of the appointments, maybe you wouldn't need to go through that
additional step of drawing on outside expertise. But when you look at the
tier-one level appointments that are outlined in Bill 1, we're talking about
some pretty significant positions with incredible levels of responsibility
within the public service in our province, both inside government itself, but
also within the agencies, the boards and commissions that government is
ultimately responsible for.

This is
not the most significant amendment we'll present by any means. While it may
appear to be a very minor point, I think it's an important one and one that I
would hope government can easily agree to, should you rule that the amendment is
in fact in order.

Mr.
Chair, I will move the following amendment: Subclause 11(2) of the bill is
amended by adding immediately after the word act the words including using
persons with expertise in finding suitable candidates for positions in
particular fields of employment.

CHAIR: The Chair had the opportunity
to review this proposed amendment earlier and finds this amendment is in order.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've
had an opportunity to listen to the Member opposite and review the amendment
that was proposed. We see no issue with adding this to the legislation. We'll
support this amendment.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for St. John's East  Quidi Vidi, who was indeed on her feet first.

MS. MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.

I'm glad
to hear the Government House Leader say that they accept this amendment. I'd
like to point out what I see as something really important, actually, in this
clause along with the amendment.

In
addition to subsection (1), the Public Service Commission shall do those other
things that are requested by the commission, where those things are required by
the commission in the exercise of its duties under this Act including using
persons with expertise in finding suitable candidates for positions in
particular fields of employment.

If,
under its duties under this act, the commission were directed by the legislation
to make sure that we have diversity in appointments, then the commission would
have the direction it would need to say to the Public Service Commission we need
you to combine hiring by merit along with hiring by diversity. If the commission
doesn't do that now and doesn't know how to do it, there are all kinds of people
with expertise out there who know how to do that. One of the areas in which they
could hire people with expertise to help getting suitable candidates would be
people who have expertise in looking at how to hire based on merit but how to do
that while also recognizing diversity.

I once
again put that out to the minister and to all the Members of government to
recognize the many, many places in this piece of legislation where they could
make insertions that would bring in the diversity issue, and here it is. It's
ripe for it because of the government saying they agree with the amendment. So
find the expertise to help them do the right thing in this act.

Thank
you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Seeing no other speakers to
the amendment, shall the amendment pass?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Shall clause 11 pass?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: It's passed.

On
motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 11, as amended,
carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Clause
11, as amended, has now been carried.

On
motion, clause 11, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 12.

CHAIR: Shall clause 12 carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 12 carried.

CLERK: Clause 13.

CHAIR: Shall clause 13 carry?

The hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like
to advise you that I'll be proposing three different amendments to clause 13.
I'll speak to the first one first, which probably makes sense.

The
issue is in subclause 13(1). It relates to reporting when Cabinet bypasses the
commission in urgent circumstances, which is something we've talked about in
second reading. While we were talking about clause 1 earlier today, we had an
opportunity to raise that issue as well.

It
relates back to paragraph (b) of subclause 9(2). I had hoped to present an
amendment at that point in time. You'll recall that the way section 9(2)(b)
currently reads, it states that the commission's merit-based process does not
apply to an appointment which, in the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor in
Council or the minister, as appropriate, must be made due to urgent or
extenuating circumstances. So I'm glad I now have a chance to raise this issue
related to urgent or extenuating circumstances.

That
paragraph gives Cabinet the power to bypass the commission whenever the Cabinet
determines that there are urgent or extenuating circumstances. Had we had an
opportunity, we would have talked about 9(2)(b) further because there should be
a public announcement before such an appointment is made, and the appointment
should last for a maximum of six months.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair would remind the hon. Member for Mount Pearl North that we cannot reflect
on a clause which has already been voted on and passed.

MR. KENT: This particular clause
relates back to a previous clause, Mr. Chair. This clause 13(1) is specifically
about reporting when Cabinet bypasses the commission in urgent circumstances. On
subclause 13(1) it says there should also be reporting after, not just annual
reporting but immediate reporting. That's the amendment we wish to present at
this point in time.

Whenever
the commission is bypassed so that an appointment can be made in urgent or
extenuating circumstances, which will be simply determined by Cabinet, we
believe public notice of that appointment should be issued immediately after to
state which person was hired in these circumstances. This is about
accountability. We don't believe Cabinet should simply make the decision that
it's urgent or extenuating and not then be accountable for reporting on that in
a timely fashion.

Subclause 13(1) currently states, The
minister responsible for the administration of this Act shall report annually to
the Legislature those appointments exempted from the operation of this Act under
the authority of paragraph 9(2)(b). Our amendment adds at the end of the
subclause: and shall give public notice of those appointments immediately after
they have been made.

The
amended subclause 13(1) would read: The minister responsible for the
administration of this act shall report annually to the Legislature those
appointments exempted from the operation of this act under the authority of
paragraph 9(2)(b) and shall give public notice of those appointments immediately
after they have been made.

A
relatively minor change we're proposing but we think it does strengthen the
legislation and puts a bit more accountability around this notion of urgent and
extenuating circumstances that's referenced several times in the bill.

Mr.
Chair, on that note, without prolonging the matter, I'll move the following
amendment. Clause 13(1) of the bill is amended by adding immediately before the
period at the end of the subclause the following: and shall give public notice
of those appointments immediately after they have been made.

CHAIR: The Chair has previously
reviewed the amendment by the hon. Member and finds that the amendment is in
order.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

MS. COADY: Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair, to have the opportunity to speak to this amendment.

I'm
listening all evening to my hon. colleague's debate and discourse around the
changes required. He speaks frequently about the need for changes to this bill.
He wants to have: and shall give public notice of those appointments
immediately after they have been made.

Mr.
Chair, the only thing I can say is in looking at appointments that are made 
most often in this environment in which we operate today with modern
communications and the way people understand and know things, if an appointment
is made, certainly something that is made urgently and with extenuating
circumstances, it would normally be in the court of public opinion very quickly.
I'm sure my hon. colleagues would hold this government to account very quickly.
I'm sure that an order-in-council would be made and therefore would be made
public. Is that ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MS. COADY: I understand that would be
done immediately, in any event, and that would be a public document. I don't
know the merit of adding to an act to say it would be immediately known. An
order-in-council would have to be made if this was done under urgent or
extenuating circumstances.

Secondly, in today's modern world and modern communications, it would be known
very quickly when an appointment is made. I'm sure if something of this nature
is made, my hon. colleagues in the Opposition and in the Third Party would hold
this government to account very quickly.

I'm not
quite sure of the merit of this amendment, especially based on the fact that it
would be known almost immediately. I suspect, Mr. Chair, that maybe this is just
to ensure that we have lots of amendments to the bill. I don't know if it's
meritorious when it already would be known publicly.

Thank
you, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Mr. Chair, those comments are
rather alarming coming from a minister who's supposed to be responsible for open
government. What we're talking about is ensuring that in a timely fashion
there's disclosure of when these appointments are made, when Cabinet bypasses
its own set of rules and doesn't go through this process and simply makes an
appointment because they believe it's urgent or there are extenuating
circumstances.

Now,
I'll acknowledge there will be times where there could be extenuating
circumstances or a matter could be urgent. All we're saying is disclose that in
a timely fashion. When we say immediately, that definitely has merit, Mr. Chair.
In this day and age it's very easy to do that. It could be done online. It could
be simply posted on a website. It doesn't require any kind of major public event
for that disclosure to occur because if it stands as is, then it could be months
before there's disclosure.

For the
minister to suggest that it will somehow just be known anyway. Well, no, it
won't be. So there's a need for some kind of process for disclosure. That's all
we're asking for here.

I'm
disappointed that the minister would take such a dismissive approach. We think
this would strengthen the legislation. Frankly, I don't think it's a big deal.
This feels like it should be an easy one to address and fix. Let's give public
notice of those appointments immediately after they have been made; immediately
within reason, obviously.

Maybe
they get posted to a website, for instance. We're not suggesting that government
needs to take out a big ad in the paper or run ads on the airwaves but there
needs to be some kind of process for disclosure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENT: In the age of openness and
transparency, I just think about how our access to information requests now get
handled in short order and the results get posted online. Orders-in-council
ultimately now get posted online. There are ways to do this. It's at very little
cost and it can be done quickly. It doesn't need to wait months and months to
happen.

I'm not
sure why there would be such a concern from Cabinet ministers on this point. It
feels like an easy one, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask government Members to
reconsider.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm
going to concur with the Member opposite when he said this is an easy one,
because it is easy. The fact is any decisions made there will be an
order-in-council. Those are posted online, easy access, usually done within
days. So I don't know what the issue is actually coming from the Member
opposite. There's going to be no delay here. This actually is routine business.

I
understand the concern is: and shall give public notice of those appointments
immediately after they've been made. So the public component will be taken care
of because orders-in-council are public, they are posted online. I don't think
we'll be going the route of spending money to do ads anywhere. As long as
they're put online I think that's acceptable and, certainly, I don't think
there's going to be any concern there. But if the concern is the public side of
it, that is taken care of.

The
second part is done after they've been made. Actually, the wording here says
immediately, but I think he just said in his commentary that within a reasonable
period of time as orders-in-council are done and they're supposed to be done. It
is a routine business, so I think the concern expressed by the Member opposite
is actually going to be done already with the bill as stated. That's why we will
not be supporting the amendment because we think it's redundant.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The Chair recognizes the hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I
appreciate the commentary from the Government House Leader. While we don't agree
on the point, I appreciate him taking the time to present a reasoned argument as
to why he doesn't. So I respect that.

But
13(1) says that an annual report is needed. What we're saying in this amendment
that we're presenting here tonight is that an immediate report is needed. The
previous argument presented by the Minister of Natural Resources is that these
matters will already be known. Well, why would you even need an annual report at
that point?

We're
simply saying let's disclose that information in the most timely fashion
possible. An annual report isn't timely. Given this information is going to be
readily available, finding a way to post it somewhere in short order makes good
sense. Using the order-in-council example, the order-in-council won't  I'm not
sure the order-in-council would necessarily indicate that the commission was
bypassed. So simply referring to the orders-in-council when they get posted
online doesn't really address this concern.

The
annual report is about exceptions. An annual report isn't good enough, in our
view. We think the reporting should be more immediate than that. That's why
we're making this recommendation.

I
respect the view of the Government House Leader, but I don't agree, and that's
why I don't agree. I think there's a bigger issue here. That's why we've put
forward this amendment. So once again I'd ask for consideration by government.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers to
the amendment, shall the amendment carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS:Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment has been
defeated.

On
motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 13 carry?

The hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I
said, I do have a couple more amendments to clause 13. Clause 13, much like a
couple of other clauses we've discussed this evening, has a number of
significant provisions that I think need to be fully debated and discussed in
this House.

What
we're proposing to do here is add subclauses 13(3) and 13(4). It has to do with
reporting when Cabinet ignores the commission recommendations. So very much
related to the previous issue raised related to subclause 13(1), but now we're
proposing that two additional subclauses be added.

For the
benefit of those that may be trying to follow all of this, clause 13 is about
when reports are required. We believe there's additional reporting required.
That's why we're suggesting two additional subclauses. The first pertains to the
Appointments Commission recommendations.

If we go
way back to second reading on this bill, I'd just like to remind people that
there are two tiers of recommendations and two tiers of appointments here. What
we've referred to as tier one are the ones that will actually be made by this
Appointments Commission. The second pertains to the Public Service Commission
recommendations, tier two.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Just for
the clarification of the hon. Member, I realize you have two amendments, you're
saying. Just so that you're aware, we would do them separately.

MR. KENT: Absolutely, yes.

CHAIR: So you will have to bring one
forward. We'll have to recess, determine if it's in order and then we'll do the
second one.

MR. KENT: Absolutely, yes. No problem
at all, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

This
first amendment is related to adding these two subclauses that I'm speaking of,
which the first pertains to the commission's recommendations; and, the second
pertains to the recommendations that will be made through the Public Service
Commission process for those entities and those positions that don't get
referred to the Independent Appointments Commission.

I have a
separate amendment to clause 13, but I think that because these two subclauses
are directly related to one another, it would make sense to propose them
together as one amendment. I trust, Mr. Chair, that's okay. Or do you need me to
move each subclause separately?

CHAIR: I've been advised that for
the sake of clarity and so there's no confusion 

MR. KENT: We'll do each of them
separately.

CHAIR:  and to make sure that
they're in order and so on, you're better off to make them separately, one at a
time. Right now you're proposing three and four. I understand there's going to
be a subclause (5). Do all three of them separately, one at a time.

MR. KENT: Okay. No problem, Mr. Chair.

I'll
speak first to subclause 13(3).

CHAIR: Correct.

MR. KENT: I won't need to repeat all of
my commentary around it because 13(4) is going to be very much related.

These
reports that we believe are needed are about all circumstances in which someone
was appointed who was not recommended by the commission. So to speak to
subclause 13(3) that we're proposing, we're talking about those tier-one
appointments that relate to the so-called Independent Appointments Commission.
We, again, believe those circumstances should be disclosed quickly and they
should also be accounted for.

The
first amendment I'll propose, Mr. Chair, then we'll do the second as you've
suggested, is subclause (3) related to the tier-one appointments. What we're
suggesting is that a subclause (3) be added that says, The minister shall
report immediately after an appointment is made and annually to the House of
Assembly those appointments to entities listed in the Schedule that were not an
appointment recommended by the commission.

Mr.
Chair, I will move the following amendment, clause 13 of the bill is amended by
adding immediately after subclause (2) the following: (3) The minister shall
report immediately after an appointment is made and annually to the House of
Assembly those appointments to entities listed in the Schedule that were not an
appointment recommended by the commission.

CHAIR: The Chair shall take a brief
recess to consider the amendment and then report back.

The
Committee is now in recess.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair has considered the amendment as proposed by the hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North and finds the amendment to be in order.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I
appreciate your consideration. Just because I suspect we'll shortly vote on
this, I want to remind hon. Members of what we're proposing here.

It's
about reporting. By adding subclause 13(3), we're talking about recommendations
that are coming from the Appointments Commission. These reports are about
circumstances in which someone was appointed who was not recommended by the
commission. We believe that should be disclosed immediately and should also be
accounted for in the annual reports.

We're
simply adding a subclause that says: The minister shall report immediately
after an appointment is made and annually to the House of Assembly those
appointments to entities listed in the Schedule that were not an appointment
recommended by the commission.

It's
fairly straightforward. I won't prolong discussion, Mr. Chair. I've made my
points and certainly ask for government's consideration of what I think is a
reasonable amendment.

CHAIR: Do we have any further
speakers to the amendment?

Seeing
none, shall the amendment carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment has been
defeated.

On
motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for the
District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm
disappointed that amendment was defeated. I'll propose an additional amendment.
I had mentioned previously that we were going to propose subclause 13(3) and
subclause 13(4). Well, subclause 13(3) just didn't get approved, so I'm going to
propose a new 13(3) which was my 13(4). I think you're following me here.

So the
new subclause (3) I would like to propose relates to the recommendations from
the Public Service Commission for the tier-two appointments, for those
appointments that won't go through this Liberal Appointments Commission but go
through a Public Service Commission process.

The
language we're proposing now for subclause (3) is: The minister shall report
immediately after an appointment is made and annually to the House of Assembly
those appointments included in Schedule C of the
Public Service Commission Act that were not an appointment
recommended by the Public Service Commission.

This is
about accountability and transparency. It's about immediately disclosing those
instances where these processes aren't followed. This additional reporting is
not a big burden. It doesn't really cost anything. It's just about making the
whole process a little bit more legitimate, hopefully, and more transparent.

Mr.
Chair, I'm adjusting it based on the failure of the previous amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENT: I'm moving the following
amendment. Clause 13 of the bill is amended by adding immediately after
subclause (2) the following: (3) The minister shall report immediately after an
appointment is made and annually to the House of Assembly those appointments
included in Schedule C of the Public
Service Commission Act that were not an appointment recommended by the
Public Service Commission.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The Chair has previously
reviewed the amendment and finds this amendment also to be in order.

Do we
have any speakers to the amendment?

The hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Just quickly, Mr. Chair, I'm
not interested in prolonging it unnecessarily. For the reasons I previously
outlined, this is just about improving reporting.

These
reports we're asking for address a circumstance where somebody is appointed who
wasn't recommended. Having that disclosed in a timely fashion, if we're actually
committed to having a process with accountability and transparency, then it just
makes good sense.

I've
made my arguments; I won't prolong them. Unfortunately, the previous amendment
was voted down. I fear this one will be as well. But I believe it's the right
thing to do and I think it improves upon this flawed legislation. I hope
government will reconsider, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers to
the amendment, shall the amendment carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment has been
defeated.

On
motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Do we have any further
speakers?

The hon.
the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Originally we were going to add a subclause 13(5). So now we're going to propose
subclause 13(3) once again, as our proposed subclauses 13(3) and 13(4) didn't
pass. This is about the merit principle.

In light
of the previous amendments failing, I may need to make a slight adjustment here
to the proposed amendment. Let me walk you through our rationale for proposing
an additional subclause and then we'll work through the amendment process.

Clause
13, which we're spending some time on here this evening, is as significant in
some ways as clause 3. It's about when reports are required. We believe that yet
another report is required here.

The
merit principle is at the heart of this legislation. It's actually included in
the long title of the legislation. We believe there should be independent annual
review of all tier-one appointments to determine if the merit principle was
respected.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I
believe there will actually be an amendment required to another clause later
under clause 19 regarding tier-two appointments. But for now we'll address the
tier-one appointments that are handled by the Appointments Commission.

Our
amendment adds the following new subclause at the end of clause 13, which would
now be subclause 13(3): The Public Service Commission must conduct an annual
review of all appointments to entities and statutory appointments listed in the
Schedule to determine if the merit principle was respected and its review shall
form a part of the report made under this section.

We want
to ensure that this merit principle, which is key to the whole legislation, is
upheld. Having the Public Service Commission review that annually and provide
some commentary on that helps ensure that.

This
relates to some legislation that exists in other provinces that I feel is
relevant at this point in time to draw your attention to and draw Members'
attention to, Mr. Chair. Government has repeatedly suggested that this is the
first example of an independent, merit-based appointments process in Canada. I
don't believe that notion is accurate. In fact, Ontario has had an independent
appointments commission for decades. The merit principle does actually factor in
here.

Ontario
has had a Standing Committee on Government Agencies since 1978. The function
initially was to select and review a small number of agencies, boards and
commissions each year, but then that standing committee in 1990 was given a
fresh mandate that took effect at its meeting, I think, early in 1991. So we're
going back 25 years.

The
mandate of that committee in Ontario reflected the recommendations of an
all-party committee report in 1986. The reason I'm raising that, Mr. Chair, is
that the committee now reviews intended appointees to agencies, boards and
commissions and of directors to the corporations in which the Crown in right of
Ontario is majority shareholder. Intended appointees may be requested to appear
before the committee to discuss their qualifications. The committee reports back
to the legislature on whether or not it concurs with the intended appointments.

A
discussion of qualifications is all about merit. It's about making sure the
right people get appointed for the right reasons. There's precedent for what's
being proposed here in Bill 1, we just don't feel government is going about it
the right way. This additional accountability related to ensuring the merit
principle is followed is a really critical change that we hope government will
consider.

When
Ontario went down that road there were over 5,000 appointments to be considered
by the committee. Complementing the work of the standing committee, Ontario
actually has a Public Appointments Secretariat. The mission of that secretariat
is to ensure the most qualified men and women having the highest personal and
professional integrity serve the public on the province's provincial agencies
and other entities. Persons selected to serve must reflect the true face of
Ontario in terms of diversity and regional representation.

Diversity and regional representation; that ties directly into the provisions
related to merit and qualifications as we were reflecting on earlier. The
government has committed itself to a more open and transparent system for
filling the positions on the province's provincial agencies and other entities.
So maybe Bill 1 is not as groundbreaking as some would have you believe, Mr.
Chair.

All
appointments, order-in-council and ministerial letter are made following a
recruitment and review process supported by the Public Appointments Secretariat.
Ontario has an Adjudicative Tribunals
Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act which enforces the
competitive, merit-based process. In order to ensure adjudicative tribunals are
accountable, transparent and efficient in their operations, while remaining
independent in their decision making.

Mr.
Chair, while we're discussing this, Ontario is not the only province to appoint
based on merit. In British Columbia's
Public Service Act, Part 2, you'll find a position called the merit
commissioner. There's really good precedent across the country for what we're
talking about here this evening when it comes to making the merit principle
stronger.

In that
Public Service Act in BC, before you
get to Part 2, you'll notice that the act applies to any board, commission,
agency or organization of the government and its members or employees, to which
the Lieutenant Governor in Council declares this Act, or a provision of this
Act, to apply. The merit commissioner in BC is an officer of the legislature
and must faithfully, honestly and impartially exercise the powers and perform
the duties of the office.

What
we're trying to do here tonight through these amendments, Mr. Chair, is bring
that same level of accountability to our process here in Newfoundland and
Labrador by involving the Legislature. I know my time is running short.

MR. KIRBY: Talk about Alberta.

MR. KENT: Talk about Alberta  the
Minister of Education would like me to talk about Alberta. I will stand after
proposing my amendment and I'm happy to speak about Alberta as well. That's not
a problem.

For
right now, I'd like to propose the amendment while time still allows and then we
can debate it further. There may be other people who wish to say a few words
about this amendment that I'm proposing.

The
amendment is as follows, Mr. Chair. I move the following amendment: Clause 13 of
the Bill is amended by adding immediately after subclause (2) the following:
(3) The Public Service Commission must conduct an annual review of all
appointments to entities and statutory appointments listed in the Schedule to
determine if the merit principle was respected and its review shall form a part
of the report made under this section.

CHAIR: Okay, the Chair had an
opportunity to review the proposed amendment prior to the Member reading it here
in the House of Assembly and the Chair rules that the amendment is in order.

The
Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for the District of Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: On the amendment.

MR. KENT: I'm speaking to the
amendment. I'm glad that it is in order. I was talking about British Columbia.
I'd like to finish that thought. Then, at the request of the Minister of
Education, I'm happy to talk about some of the things that are going on in
Alberta as well.

In BC,
like I said, the merit commissioner is an officer of the legislature. The
Legislative Assembly must not recommend an individual to be appointed as merit
commissioner unless a special committee of the Legislative Assembly has
unanimously recommended to the Legislative Assembly that the individual be
appointed.

What
that means is for that merit commissioner to be put in place in British
Columbia, all parties in that legislature have to work together and support the
appointment of that person. The changes we're trying to make to uphold that
merit principle are very much in line with what's happening in a couple of other
jurisdictions in this country.

The
merit commissioner in BC is responsible for monitoring the application of the
merit principle under the act by conducting random audits of appointments to and
from within the public service to assess whether the recruitment and selection
processes were properly applied to result in appointments based on merit; and
the individual, when appointed, possessed the required qualifications for the
positions to which they were appointed 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENT: Thank you, Mr. Chair

 and
reporting the audit results to the deputy ministers or other persons having
overall responsibilities for the ministries, boards, commissions, agencies or
organizations, as the case may be, in which the appointments were made.

That's a
great example of merit review that's happening in British Columbia. We should
learn from it. This legislation isn't groundbreaking, Mr. Chair. We've got clear
precedent for this kind of approach in Ontario and in British Columbia as well.
What we're talking about through this amendment is strengthening the merit
principle and ensuring accountability around the merit principle. So we should
learn from what has happened in other jurisdictions.

I think
I've outlined the arguments, but I will comment on what's going on in Alberta.
According to the Throne Speech that was on March 8 in Alberta, there's a report
coming of the all-party special committee on ethics and accountability. The new
Alberta government announced its intention to introduce the reform of agencies,
boards and commissions act.

In
September 2014, the previous premier of Alberta also committed to merit-based
appointments. So they haven't progressed as far as British Columbia or Ontario.
Clearly, they don't have the same kind of history and experience with this, but
other jurisdictions in Canada are attempting to explore what we're talking about
here this evening.

An
annual review of the merit principle makes sense. We think this amendment,
adding an additional subclause in clause 13 makes good sense. I hope that hon.
Members will support subclause 13(3) that we've proposed through this amendment
because it's all about respecting and upholding that merit principle that
government says is important and that they believe in. So here's an opportunity
to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak.

Thank
you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers,
we call the question on the amendment.

All
those in favour of the amendment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment has been
defeated.

On
motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 13 carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, clause 13 carried.

CLERK: Clause 14.

CHAIR: Shall clause 14 carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, clause 14 carried.

CLERK: Clause 15.

CHAIR: Shall clause 15 carry?

The hon.
the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Chair, I just wanted
to stand for a moment and speak to section 15 of Bill 1. As it stands, section
15, for the interest of those watching: When the House of Assembly is not in
session, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, amend the Schedule,
but the order shall not continue in force beyond the end of the next sitting of
the House of Assembly.

The good
news is that after speaking to this piece of legislation over the last two
months  it was brought forward in March  we have had a number of people that
have spoken to us. They've contacted us and expressed interest and had
suggestions.

At this
point what I'd like to do is I actually have an amendment that I would move.
It's saying: Clause 15(1) of the Bill is amended by adding immediately after the
word Schedule the words by adding to it but not deleting from it. I would
move that amendment.

CHAIR (Dempster): The hon. the Government House
Leader has proposed an amendment. This House will take a brief recess to
consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: The Government House Leader
proposed an amendment to subclause 15(1). The amendment is ruled in order.

The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want
to speak in support of the amendment that's been proposed by the Government
House Leader. In fact, one of the amendments that we mentioned earlier today and
circulated copies of is basically the same amendment. This one is worded a
little differently, perhaps better. I don't know. But the intent is exactly the
same as the amendment that we were going to bring forward to subclause 15(1).

I want
to speak to why I believe this amendment is important. Subclause 15(1) of the
bill would give Cabinet the power to amend the Schedule of the commission's act
when the House is not sitting. As this amendment reflects, that's fine if
Cabinet is adding bodies to the Schedule and subjecting more government bodies
to this process. But we had a real concern if Cabinet intended to remove a body
from the Schedule. Then it wouldn't be fine.

A body
that is removed from the Schedule wouldn't be subject to appointments through
the Appointments Commission using a merit-based process if this stood without
the amendment. That would violate the principle of the
Independent Appointments Commission Act.

Cabinet
shouldn't have the discretionary power to remove a body from the Schedule. I'm
pleased to see that government has acknowledged that and brought forward an
amendment considered essentially the same as the one we would have proposed.

I have
no problem with the wording as it's proposed. It achieves exactly the outcome we
were hoping for with our proposed amendment. I'm simply rising to speak in
support of the amendment that has been proposed by government.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers,
we'll call the vote on the amendment to subclause 15(1).

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Carried.

On
motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 15, as amended,
carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, clause 15, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 16.

CHAIR: Shall clause 16 carry?

The hon.
the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Moving on to the next section here, section 16 states:
The minister responsible for the administration of this Act shall, every 5
years, perform a review of this Act and consider the areas in which it may be
improved and report his or her findings to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

We are
going to propose an amendment. I will acknowledge the fact that the Member of
the Opposition did have an amendment for 16. I believe they are very similar in
intent but I think this one may be worded a little more clearly. I will read it.
They'll have an opportunity to speak to it, but I believe it has the same
intent.

The
amendment I would move is that clause 16 of the bill is amended by renumbering
it as clause 16(1) and by adding immediately after that clause the following:
(2) Within 3 days of the submission of the report under subsection (1) the
minister shall (a) table the report in the House of Assembly; or (b) where the
House of Assembly is not then sitting, table the report as if it were a report
of an officer of the House of Assembly under section 19.1 of the
House of Assembly Act.

I
believe this accomplishes the goal that's set out in the clause 16 amendment. I
think it's the same intent but I do thing it may be worded  having the benefit
of having some staff that are able to look at it, so I think it does carry the
same intent. But I look forward to comments by the Member opposite.

CHAIR: The Chair has had an
opportunity to review the amendment proposed by the Government House Leader for
clause 16. We will give the Opposition and Third Party a moment to review the
amendment proposed by the Government House Leader.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) rule if it's in
order.

CHAIR: I'm about to make a ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

CHAIR: Okay, we'll try again. It's
getting late.

The
Government House Leader proposed an amendment to clause 16. The Chair has had a
chance to review and has ruled the amendment in order.

The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just
making sure my light is on.

I
appreciate the Government House Leader's comments. I really do appreciate the
fact that government has considered these couple of amendments and brought back
wording that is acceptable to government in the proper form, and still addresses
the concerns that we've raised.

As we
just did with clause 15, an amendment that we had suggested was brought forward
by government in a form that was suitable to government. I believe that's
exactly what's happening here as well. I gather from the Government House
Leader's comments that he feels the wording as now proposed in their amendment
is very similar, and the intent is the same as what was in our proposed
amendment to clause 16. So I accept that and I appreciate the fact that
government is considering these suggestions that we've brought forward.

This
amendment to clause 16 requires the report of the review of the act to be tabled
within three days of its submission. In our amendment we had approached it
slightly differently, but I think the intent is much the same. We basically
wanted to ensure the five-year review went to the House of Assembly for release
as quickly as possible.

I'll
just speak to it very briefly without spending too much time on it, because I
think we are in agreement. Clause 16 of the bill requires a review of the act
every five years. The problem we saw was that this review would go to Cabinet.
We felt it should instead be given to the people of the province through the
Speaker of the House. This bill is supposed to be about independence, so let the
people see the review to determine whether government's performance measures up.

I know
certainly in the media, and perhaps in the House as well, the Government House
Leader has said we'll be accountable by our actions. The more reporting and the
more transparency, the more public disclosure, the better people will be able to
determine whether government's performance measures up.

So I
think these changes make sense, and for that reason I'm prepared to support the
government's proposed amendment, which is basically the same as our amendment,
just differently worded. I appreciate the co-operation from government and from
the Government House Leader.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers,
we'll call the vote on clause 16, the amendment.

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Carried
with amendment.

On
motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall clause 16, as amended,
carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 16, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Clause 17.

CHAIR: Shall clause 17 carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 17 carried.

CLERK: Clause 18.

CHAIR: Shall clause 18 carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Carried.

On
motion, clause 18 carried.

CLERK: Clause 19.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We're
getting near the end of Bill 1. I probably shouldn't say that prematurely, but
we are. There are only so many clauses. There are several amendments that I'd
like the House to consider related to clause 19. Beyond that, we will discuss
the Schedule and the long title, but we have made our way through most of the
bill in the past number of hours here in the House of Assembly.

Getting
right down to business again, we're going to be proposing an amendment to
subclause 19(4). I want to highlight for the House that it relates to the
Public Service Commission Act
subsection 21(3). It's about bypassing the commission in urgent circumstances,
which is an issue that has come up several times during this debate.

The
amendment that we're going to propose here is parallel to an amendment we wish
to propose to subclause 9(2)(b). It's about what happens when Cabinet declares
the circumstances to be urgent or extenuating in order to bypass the merit-based
process.

An
amendment we were hoping to address previously related to tier-one appointments.
This one, in subclause 19(4), relates to Public Service Commission tier-two
appointments. So if Cabinet can
bypass the process at will, then where is the independence? It goes back to that
problem that's really at the heart of all of this from our perspective. It makes
a mockery of the principle of the bill when the Cabinet has so much
discretionary power to bypass its own legislation and appoint at will.

This amendment to
19(4) affects subsection 21(3) of the
Public Service Commission Act. Here's how subsection 21(3) in the
Public Service Commission Act reads:
Where an appointment is made further to urgent or extenuating circumstances as
referred to in paragraph (2)(b), the circumstances of that appointment shall be
included in the report required under section 17.

Our amendment adds
immediately after the words in paragraph (2)(b) the following words: and
provided that the minister has first made a public announcement of the proposed
appointment and that appointment is not more than 6 months unless the
appointment has been confirmed through a merit-based process.

The amended
subsection 21(3) would read: Where an appointment is made further to urgent or
extenuating circumstances as referred to in paragraph (2)(b), and provided that
the minister has first made a public announcement of the proposed amendment and
that amendment is not more than six months unless the appointment has been
confirmed through a merit-based process, the circumstances of that appointment
shall be included in the report required under section 17.

In other words,
Madam Chair, before Cabinet can make a tier-two appointment that bypasses the
Public Service Commission in what Cabinet would call urgent or extenuating
circumstances, there must first be a public announcement that the process will
be bypassed because of urgent or extenuating circumstances. Also, the
appointment should not be for more than six months unless the appointment is
subject to an actual merit-based process.

We proposed a
related amendment to subclause 13(1) that wasn't successful to require reports
on these exceptions immediately after they're made and annually. That's what
we're trying to  we're trying to put some more rigor around those instances
where the commission is bypassed in urgent circumstances, and ensure more
transparency and accountability around that.

I hope that's
clear. It's one of the wordier amendments, I guess, that we'll be presenting. If
Cabinet plans to make appointments that bypass the commission in those urgent
and extenuating circumstances that has to be revealed publicly. The appointments
should only be for a specific period of time if there hasn't been some kind of
merit-based process.

I'll
move the following amendment, Madam Chair: Subclause 19(4) of the bill is
amended at the proposed paragraph 21(3) to the
Public Service Commission Act by
adding immediately after the words in paragraph (2)(b) the following words
and provided that the minister has first made a public announcement of the
proposed appointment and that appointment is not more than 6 months unless the
appointment has been confirmed through a merit-based process.

CHAIR: The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North has made a motion to propose an amendment to subclause 19(4). The
House will now recess briefly to consider the amendment.

Recess

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Member for Mount Pearl North proposed an amendment to subclause 19(4). The Chair
has ruled the amendment in order.

The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm glad
the amendment is in order. I won't speak further to it. I've made the arguments
as to why I think this is a sensible amendment and I'm hoping government will
see fit to support this amendment.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers,
shall the amendment carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

On
motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 19 carry?

The hon.
the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's
good to get up and speak on this section 19. My colleague for Mount Pearl North
has been carrying today on this, and doing a great job I might add.

As we've
just seen, this amendment is in order. The bill is amended at the proposed  to
the Public Service Commission Act by
adding immediately after the words: and provided that the minister has first
made a public announcement of the proposed appointment and that appointment is
not more than 6 months unless the appointment has been confirmed thorough a
merit-based process.

We're
glad to see that amendment has been found to be in order. I pass it back over to
my colleague to carry on with his next amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Madam Chair, the amendment
that was found in order was defeated. So we're now back to debating clause 19,
is that correct?

CHAIR: Yes, correct.

MR. KENT: Okay, thank you.

Just to
make sure we're in the same place. Thank you.

On that
note, I'd now like to propose an additional amendment to clause 19. It's to add
subsection 21(4) to the Public Service
Commission Act. But I now believe that would be 21(3) because if the
previous amendment failed, then this one would actually be 21(3).

Does
that make sense, Madam Chair? I'm pausing just to make sure we're in the same
place here.

CHAIR: No, I think we have a
discrepancy here, I say to the hon. Member.

We'll
just have a look at the amendment you have there.

MR. KENT: Okay.

CHAIR: Just pause for a moment.

The hon.
Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Madam Chair, I think now
we're on the same page. We just want to make sure we get it right. It's a little
more complicated in this instance because we're proposing a series of amendments
to clause 19. Because government just voted down our first proposed amendment,
we now need to make some adjustments to the next amendment.

That's
where we are right now. I think we've got that sorted out. We're going to
propose a new subsection 21(3) to the
Public Service Commission Act. We're proposing an amendment to subclause
19(4) of Bill 1.

This
amendment is parallel to an earlier amendment we proposed this evening. It's
about the annual review of the merit principle. It's purpose is to require an
annual review to ensure the merit principle was respected in tier-two
appointments that should go through the Public Service Commission's merit-based
appointments process.

It's
about what happens when Cabinet declares the circumstances to be urgent or
extenuating in order to bypass the merit-based process. So very similar to some
other amendments that we've proposed.

What we
want to do now, in light of the previous amendment failing, is amend subclause
19(4) to add subsection 21(3) to the
Public Service Commission Act. Here's how the new subsection 21(3) would
read 

AN HON. MEMBER: Subsection 21(4).

MR. KENT: It is subsection 21(4). Okay,
I apologize. We're just having a little bit of confusion with the numbering
here, Madam Chair, just because of the multiple amendments to the same section.

I'm
sorry; it's subsection 21(4) that we're proposing to add. Subsection 21(4) would
read as follows: (4) The Public Service Commission must conduct an annual
review of all appointments to entities and statutory appointments listed in
Schedule C to determine if the merit principle was respected and its review
shall form a part of the report made under section 17.

So let
me just tell you what section 17 in the
Public Service Commission Act says: The chairperson shall, following the
end of each financial year of the government, make a report to the minister of
the transactions and affairs of the commission during the immediately preceding
financial year, and the minister shall lay the report before the Legislature
within 15 days after it is submitted to him or her if the Legislature is then
sitting, and, if it is not sitting then within 15 days after the beginning of
the next session.

If we
are aligned here, the original amendment that I was going to propose, the
numbering will still work as it was originally proposed. I'm going to move the
following amendment, Madam Chair. Subclause 19(4) of the bill is amended at the
proposed section 21 to the Public Service
Commission Act by adding after subsection (3) the following: (4) The Public
Service Commission must conduct an annual review of all appointments to entities
and statutory appointments listed in Schedule C to determine if the merit
principle was respected and its review shall form a part of the report made
under section 17.

CHAIR: The Chair has had a chance to
review the amendment and has ruled it in order.

The hon.
the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm
hoping that I have this right. There was a little bit of confusion here with
this one. I think the amendment as entered by the Deputy Opposition House Leader
was to change clause 19(4) and the amendment would now say: The Public Service
Commission must conduct an annual review of all appointments to entities and
statutory appointments listed in Schedule C to determine if the merit principle
was respected and its review shall form part of the report made under section
17.

Looking
at this piece of legislation, in case people were wondering, the Schedule C that
is referred to is towards the back; Schedule C lists a number of entities which
we would refer to as tier-two entities. There is tier one and there's tier two.
Again just so people understand how tier two works, tier two will still go
through the Public Service Commission. People will have the opportunity to
apply, to put their name forward and it is screened. The Public Service
Commission puts forward names to  in this case, though, it doesn't go to the
Independent Appointments Commission; it goes to the minister that would make the
decision.

Currently, as it stands, under the process that's currently in place, there's
nothing whatsoever. A minister can appoint who they want regardless. There's
nothing in place. In many cases, there's often no notice given; it's just you
fill the position based on what's available. I can say that a number of them are
available.

I guess
the issue I have here is that basically the Public Service Commission is being
asked to do an annual audit on themselves. They're saying they must conduct an
annual review of all appointments. In this case, any appointments made to this
have to come through the Public Service Commission.

So the
Public Service Commission is the one that's putting them forward. It's up to a
minister to take these names and apply. It's not about going outside of this. If
there is an exception made to this, it goes back to the other sections here
where there's notice having to be provided and tabled in the House.

I
certainly don't think the PSC needs oversight of themselves. I don't think that
this subsection is necessary. I understand where the Member was trying to get
with it, but don't think it's necessary.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I
appreciate the Government House Leader's comments. This is another one where
we'll probably have to agree to disagree. Even if the Public Service Commission
is reviewing appointments that it's been involved in, an annual review to
confirm that the merit principle has been upheld, even if it's an internal
review, we still think has value.

Making
sure that the merit-based appointments process is maintained makes a lot of
sense. What we're talking about here, particularly times when Cabinet declares
the circumstances to be urgent or extenuating in order to bypass that
merit-based process.

I
respectfully disagree with the Government House Leader's view on this one. We do
feel this additional step to ensure the merit principle is upheld has merit. I
won't prolong it. I've made my arguments. We think this is a good amendment.

Unfortunately, we see this differently. But an internal review by the Public
Service Commission to ensure that the merit principle is being upheld is
something that we feel is valuable and would improve this legislation.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers,
shall the amendment carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: The amendment is defeated.

On
motion, amendment defeated.

CHAIR: Shall clause 19 carry?

The hon.
Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank
the Minister of Business, Tourism, Culture and Rural Development for his
enthusiastic support one moment ago. He should note as well that I always get
the name of his department right. I guess I should as his critic, but it's a
complicated department name that many mishandle but even at this hour we've got
it right.

I do
have one more amendment to propose to clause 19, which we're now debating. It's
unfortunate that our previous two amendments have failed. So we'll move on to a
different issue now. Previously, we were talking about urgent or extenuating
circumstances and an annual review of the merit principle, but now we want to
talk about expanding the commission's Schedule.

We were
just talking about the Public Service Commission and its role in all of this.
Our belief is that more public bodies should be subject to the new commission
and the merit-based process. Even though a number of our significant concerns
with the commission process haven't been addressed, if there's going to be a
commission then we feel more bodies should actually be subject to the commission
and its process.

The
Independent Appointments Commission tier-one bodies are listed in the Schedule
at the end of this bill. They include a couple of entities and dozens of
statutory appointments. The Public Service Commission tier-two bodies are listed
in subclause 19(5) which proposes to add a Schedule C to the
Public Service Commission Act. It
includes 30 entities and dozens of statutory appointments.

What
we're proposing here, Madam Chair, is quite simple. We want to take the entities
from the Public Service Commission Schedule and add them to the Independent
Appointments Commission Schedule, and in order to do that we need two
amendments; one to remove them from one place and another to add them to another
place.

This
first amendment I'm introducing is removing entities from the
Public Service Commission Act, Schedule C. The amendment will read:
Subclause 19(5) of the bill is amended at the proposed Schedule C by deleting
the heading Entities and the items under that heading.

This is
one amendment, and I will be proposing a further amendment to the Schedule that
will add those entities back in under the Schedule for the Appointments
Commission. What we're doing here is simply taking out the list from under the
Public Service Commission and putting it under the Independent Appointments
Commission but that will require a second amendment that I can't do in the same
amendment  just to be clear on what we're doing here.

There's
a long list of those entities that we're talking about. I could read them all,
Madam Chair, but in the interest of time 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KENT: I'm having a little trouble
hearing myself, Madam Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask
members for their co-operation (inaudible).

Thank
you.

MR. KENT: Thank you.

I won't
read the full list but just give you a few examples of those entities we're
talking about moving: Agreement on Internal Trade Dispute Screener; Agreement on
Internal Trade Roster of Panellists; Atlantic Lotto Corporation with respect to
provincial representatives; Dental Monitoring Committee; Municipal Assessment
Agency with respect to taxpayer representatives; Premier's Youth Advisory
Committee; Provincial Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors; Provincial Wellness
Advisory Council. Just to give you a few examples.

It is a
long list, and I can read it if the minister would like me to do so.

MR. A. PARSONS: (Inaudible.)

MR. KENT: Okay. I'm going to respect
the opinion of the Government House Leader. He doesn't feel I need to read them
all into the record, so I accept that. They're there in the bill clearly
outlined.

We
believe even for these bodies, which are categorized here as tier-two bodies,
that the Independent Appointments Commission should be responsible for those
appointments as well. If we're going to do this, let's do it. We still believe
there are some major problems with the commission as its proposed making it very
difficult for us to support this bill as it presently stands, but if it's going
to proceed then we believe all of these entities should be subject to the
commission and a merit-based process. That's what this amendment is about.

Madam
Chair, on that basis I move the following amendment: Subclause 19(5) of the bill
is amended at the proposed Schedule C by deleting the heading Entities and the
items under that heading.

CHAIR: The Chair has had a chance to
review the amendment and is ruling the amendment out of order because it is
really beyond the scope and intent of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Shall
clause 19 carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, clause 19 carried.

CLERK: Clauses 20 through 24
inclusive.

CHAIR: Shall clauses 20 to 24
inclusive carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, clauses 20 through 24 carried.

CLERK: The Schedule.

CHAIR: Shall the Schedule carry?

MR. KENT: I'm up, so I'll speak briefly
and then give him the floor.

CHAIR: The hon. Member for Mount
Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Madam Chair, we do have
another amendment that relates to the amendment that was previously ruled out of
order. I still think it's important to make the point of what we were trying to
do. The amendment is to take entities from the
Public Service Commission Act,
Schedule C, and place them in the Independent Appointments Commission Schedule.

I am
going to move the amendment. I'll respect whatever ruling you make. Perhaps
government will have additional amendments to the Schedule. They would be
welcome, Madam Chair, especially if our amendment is ruled out of order.

I'll
only read the amendment once, given the length of it. I now will have to read
that long list I was referring to moments ago.

I move
the following amendment to the Schedule: The Schedule to the bill is amended by
adding immediately under the heading Entities the following items: Agreement
on Internal Trade Dispute Screener; Agreement on Internal Trade Roster of
Panellists; Atlantic Lotto Corporation with respect to provincial
representatives; C. A. Pippy Park Golf Course Limited with respect to
ministerial appointments; Dental Monitoring Committee; Interprovincial Lottery
Corporation Board of Directors with respect to provincial nominees; Municipal
Assessment Agency with respect to taxpayer representatives; Newfoundland and
Labrador Film Development Corporation; Newfoundland and Labrador Historic
Commemorations Board; Newfoundland and Labrador Sports Centre Incorporated with
respect to six members and a chairperson appointed by Lieutenant Governor in
Council; Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism Board with respect to a ministerial
appointment of a chairperson; Premier's Youth Advisory Committee; Provincial
Advisory Council on Aging and Seniors; Provincial Advisory Council on Mental
Health and Addictions; Provincial Advisory Council on the Inclusion of Persons
with Disabilities; Provincial Cancer Control Advisory Committee; Provincial
Council of the Rural Secretariat; Provincial Wellness Advisory Council; Regional
Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat, Avalon Peninsula; Regional Council of
the Rural Secretariat, Burin Peninsula; Regional Council of the Rural
Secretariat, Clarenville  Bonavista; Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat,
Corner Brook  Rocky Harbour; Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat, Gander
 New-Wes-Valley; Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat, Grand Falls-Windsor
 Baie Verte  Harbour Breton; Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat,
Labrador Region; Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat, St. Anthony  Port
Au Choix Region; Regional Council of the Rural Secretariat, Stephenville  Port
aux Basques Region; Torngat Joint Fisheries Board with respect to the members
appointed by the provincial minister; Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management
Board with respect to the members appointed by the provincial minister; and
URock Volunteer Award Selection Board.

CHAIR: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The
Chair has had a chance to review the amendment. Again, it is beyond the scope
and intent of the bill and for that reason has been ruled out of order.

The hon.
the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Speaking
to the Schedule, I do have an amendment that I would move. This one is number
one: The Schedule to the bill is amended by deleting the reference Access
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 2015, section 85. There was a
briefing today on a piece of legislation about statutory offices and this is
something that, actually, I will discuss again after we move this, if it's
accepted and approved.

CHAIR: The Chair has reviewed the
amendment put forth by the Government House Leader and has ruled that the
amendment is in order.

The hon.
the Government House Leader.

MR. A. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I
believe as we move forward here, we are coming towards the end. We're dealing
with the Schedule of the bill. As the Member opposite referenced, there are a
number of different entities here. Again, depending on whether they're tier one
or tier two, in fact, the level of importance defers. I would suggest that tier
one obviously carries a different level of importance as opposed to tier two.

As
you're going through tier one in the Schedule there are a number of agencies and
groups there. One of them actually is under the Statutory Appointments. It's the
Access to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, 2015, section 85. And that's as it relates to the Information
and Privacy Commissioner. All statutory offices normally, as they stand right
now, would be a selection by Cabinet, a resolution put forward to the House and
then voted on in this House of Assembly.

In our
proposal that we're putting forward, this would still go through the PSC. It
will go the IAC. Three names will be put forward to Cabinet, a selection made,
the same thing, a resolution put forward. As we know, it was just last year that
ATIPP was revised and we discussed, debated and voted on it here in this House.
The procedure voted on and I think agreed unanimously by all Members in this
House was to have a different procedure put in place to select that. I think
it's actually a double-majority vote that's to be used.

The
position that we're putting forward here now is that given we haven't had an
opportunity to test this particular piece of legislation, and the fact that it
also has to be reviewed down the order as a statutory review, we felt it best
given that this was put forward in this House  actually, was brought forward by
the previous government, was supported. We feel that it's best to continue on
with that, to test it and allow that to continue as per normal.

So
that's why the amendment as suggested is put forward. But I would look forward
to any comments or questions the Members opposite would have.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I accept
the rationale that's been put forward by the Government House Leader. It sounds
like it's a logical amendment. I have nothing further to add and am prepared to
support the amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for
Conception Bay South.

MR. PETTEN: I do support the amendment
with my colleague for Mount Pearl North. He'll finish it off here now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Mount
Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Madam Chair, I appreciate how
concise and to the point the Member for Conception Bay South is when he speaks
in this House. I hope his constituents are watching tonight. Just so focused and
to the point, I appreciate that.

The
final point I wanted to make, Madam Chair 

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. KENT:  because I realize we'll
vote on the amendment, but then we'll quickly vote on the Schedule as well. I
just want to reiterate again that we believe all of these appointments should be
subject to the Appointments Commission process. That's the spirit and intent of
the amendments we were introducing last going off under clause 19, and now under
the Schedule as well.

I just
wanted to highlight that point one more time that we believe if we're going to
do this, then all entities should be subject to the merit-based process through
the Appointments Commission. But again, I don't have any problem with this
amendment that's somewhat related, but doesn't address our main concern with
this Schedule.

Thank
you.

CHAIR: Seeing no further speakers,
shall the amendment carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

Carried.

On
motion, amendment carried.

CHAIR: Shall the Schedule, as
amended, carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, Schedule, as amended, carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the
Lieutenant Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as
follows.

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause
carry?

All
those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against?

The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do
wish to propose an amendment to the long title. I believe this would be the
appropriate time to do that. Is that correct?

CLERK: An Act To Establish An
Independent Appointments Commission And To Require A Merit-Based Process For
Various Appointments.

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

The hon.
the Member for Mount Pearl North.

MR. KENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I
believe this will be the final amendment that I will propose here  I was going
to say this evening, but it's now morning. I guess in House of Assembly world,
though, it's still Monday. That's the remarkable thing about how days work in
this House of Assembly. It's still Monday here, regardless of what the clock
says. But I don't think Monday will continue too much longer.

I want
to propose an amendment to the long title because some of the significant
amendments we proposed earlier this evening, particularly those related to
clauses 6 and 7, failed. They either failed or were ruled not in order. The ones
in clause 6, I believe, were ruled out of order. The challenge is that was an
opportunity to make the processes more independent.

So now
we have a process that's not independent. Because we don't have a process that's
independent, it feels like the long title of the act is inaccurate. I won't talk
about this at length; I'll simply make the point that, in the interest of
accuracy, the long title should be amended to truly reflect the legislation
because it currently doesn't. So I'd like to propose the following amendment,
Madam Chair, to the long title.

The long
title to the bill is amended by deleting the words Independent Appointments
Commission and substituting the words Appointments Recommendation Commission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

According to O'Brien and Bosc, page 770, under The Title, Amendment to the long
title is sometimes possible once consideration of the bill is concluded. The
title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such
an amendment. That is not the case with the bill here this evening, so the
Chair rules the amendment out of order.

We'll
call the vote on the long title.

All
those in favour, 'aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, 'nay.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On
motion, title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report Bill 1, An Act
To Establish An Independent Appointments Commission And To Require A Merit-Based
Process For Various Appointments, with a number of amendments, carried?